NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION...sarily a sign of weakness. It demonstrates the multiple...

14:2008 N

ORD

IC VISUA

L A RTS ED

UCATIO

N IN

T RAN

SITION

VETENSKA

PSRÅD

ETS RAPPO

RTSERIE

ISSN 1651-7350

ISBN 978-91-7307-148-2

The Committee for Educational Sciences has, right from the outset in 2001, initiated a large number

of overviews and surveys. The purpose has been to provide a stimulus for discussion about the area

of educational science and also to provide further data on the basis of which the Committee can take

strategic decisions.

This overview presents Nordic research in the realm of visual arts education. The pedagogy of art can be

studied on the basis of knowledge of art or teaching. It can be described in terms of visual communication

or visual culture. Professor Lars Lindström at Stockholm University, who is the editor of the overview,

commences with several articles explaining the conceptual framework and the historical background.

This is followed by overviews from the five Nordic countries on research topics between 1995 and 2006

or later. By way of conclusion there is a comprehensive bibliography of literature in the realm of visual

arts education.

NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION

VETENSKAPSRÅDETS RAPPORTSERIE 14:2008

A Research ReviewKlarabergsviadukten 82 | SE-103 78 Stockholm | Tel +46-8-546 44 000 | Fax +46-8-546 44 180 | [email protected] | www.vr.se

The Swedish Research Council is a government agency that provides funding for basic

research of the highest scientific quality in all disciplinary domains. Besides research

funding, the agency works with strategy, analysis, and research communication.

The objective is for Sweden to be a leading research nation.

NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATIONIN TRANSITION

A Research Review

Editor: Lars Lindström

With national reviews byHelene Illeris, DenmarkRósa Kristín Júlíusdóttir, IcelandLars Lindström, SwedenLiv Merete Nielsen, NorwayMarjo Räsänen, Finland

Nordic Visual Arts Education in Transition

This report can be ordered at www.vr.se

VETENSKAPSRÅDET

(Swedish Research Council)

SE-103 78 Stockholm

© Swedish Research Council

ISSN 1651-7350

ISBN 91-7307-148-2

Cover Photo: Kennet Ruona

Graphic Design: Erik Hagbard Couchér, Swedish Research Council

Printed by CM Gruppen, Bromma, Sweden 2009

NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION 3

FÖRORD

Utbildningsvetenskapliga kommittén har, alltsedan starten 2001, initierat ett stort antal översikter och kartläggningar. Detta dels för att stimulera till diskussioner om det utbildningsvetenskapliga området och dels för att få ytterligare underlag till strategiska ställningstaganden i kommitténs arbete.

På samma sätt som övriga råd och kommittéer vid Vetenskapsrådet har kommittén även i uppgift att behandla forskningspolitiska frågor och arbeta med forskningsinformation. Kommittén fördelar medel till forsknings projekt och forskarskolor. Utöver detta stöder kommittén även forskarnätverk, arrangerar konferenser och delar ut resebidrag för att stimulera internationellt utbyte mellan forskare.

I denna översikt presenteras nordisk didaktisk forskning på bildområdet. Bildämnets didaktik kan studeras med utgångspunkt i bildkunskap eller pedagogisk kunskap, ämnet kan beskrivas i termer av visuell kommunikation eller visuell kultur. Professor Lars Lindström, Stockholm universitet, som är redaktör för översikten, inleder med fl era artiklar som förklarar begrepp och ger historisk bakgrund. I en av dessa redovisas en studie av bilddidaktisk forskning och kursplaner i bild i Sverige fram till och med 1994. Därefter följer översikter från de fem nordiska länderna kring temata i forskningen 1995-2006 eller senare. Avslutningsvis fi nns omfattande bibliografi er över didaktisk litteratur på bildområdet.

Stockholm i november 2008

Sigbrit Franke Elisabet Nihlfors

Ordförande Huvudsekreterare

4 NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION

CONTENTS

ENGLISH SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7SAMMANFATTNING PÅ SVENSKA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

ISSUES IN VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13A Conceptual Framework

Lars Lindström

FROM PSYCHOLOGY TO SEMIOTICS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36Swedish Studies and Curricula until 1994

Lars Lindström

MEDIATED ACTION AND AESTHETIC LEARNING ................................................................................................................................................... 52Themes in Swedish Studies 1995–2008

Lars Lindström

BETWEEN VISUAL ARTS AND VISUAL CULTURE .................................................................................................................................................... 80Themes in Danish studies 1995–2008

Helene Illeris

MULTICULTURALISM AND ARTS-BASED RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................... 95Themes in Finnish Studies 1995–2006

Marjo Räsänen

MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION ..................................................................................................... 113Themes in Icelandic Studies 1995–2007

Rósa Kristín Júlíusdóttir

ART, DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................................ 127Themes in Norwegian Studies 1995–2007

Liv Merete Nielsen

APPENDIX 1Swedish Publications 1995–2008 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 146

APPENDIX 2Danish Publications 1995–2006 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160


APPENDIX 3Finnish Publications 1995–2006 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 174

APPENDIX 4Icelandic publications 1995–2007 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 195

APPENDIX 5Norwegian Publications 1995–2006 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 198


ENGLISH SUMMARY

This review of Nordic research in visual arts education (VAE) is part of a series, funded by the Swedish Research Council, on teaching and learning in diff erent school subjects. It presents, to begin with, a multidimensional, conceptual framework describing the knowledge base of VAE. For example, VAE can be studied by taking either the visual arts or education as the star-ting point when formulating research questions, etc. Another important dimension is whether the subject matter being taught is mainly defi ned in terms of visual communication or visual culture. In a substudy, “From psychology to semiotics”, Swedish research and VAE curricula until 1994 are reviewed. After these conceptual and historical introductions, authors from each one of the Nordic countries present a review on trends and themes in her or his country from 1995 until 2006 or later:

• Themes in Swedish Studies: Mediated action and aesthetic learning. • Themes in Danish Studies: Between visual arts and visual culture.• Themes in Finnish Studies: Multiculturalism and arts-based research. • Themes in Icelandic Studies: Multifaceted approach to visual arts education.• Themes in Norwegian Studies: Art, design and environmental participation.• Finally, extensive national bibliographies of studies in VAE are made available.• These include Ph.D. theses, books, chapters, articles and reports.


SAMMANFATTNING PÅ SVENSKA

Denna översikt över nordisk didaktisk forskning på bildområdet ingår i en serie rapporter, utgivna av Vetenskapsrådet, om undervisning och lärande i olika skolämnen. Undersökningen presenterar, till att börja med, en mång-dimensionell, begreppslig referensram avsedd att beskriva den bildrelaterade didaktikens kunskapsbas. Bildämnets didaktik kan exempelvis studeras med utgångspunkt antingen i bildkunskap eller i pedagogisk kunskap. En annan viktig dimension handlar om huruvida ämnet bild beskrivs i termer av visuell kommunikation eller visuell kultur. I en delstudie, “Från psyko-logi till semiotik”, granskas bilddidaktisk forskning och kursplaner i bild i Sverige till och med 1994. Efter denna begreppsliga utredning och histo-riska bakgrund, presenterar de medverkande forskarna var sin översikt över tendenser och teman i det egna landet från 1995 till 2006 eller senare:

• Teman i svenska studier: medierad handling och estetiska lärprocesser• Teman i danska studier: mellan bildkonst och visuell kultur• Teman i fi nska studier: mångkulturalism och konstbaserad forskning • Teman i isländska studier: ett mångfacetterat närmande till bildpedagogik• Teman i norska studier: konst, design och miljöengagemang• Slutligen presenteras omfattande nationella bibliografi er över didaktisk

litteratur på bildområdet. Dessa tar upp doktorsavhandlingar, böcker, kapitel, artiklar och rapporter.


INTRODUCTION

The present report had in its inception the provisional title of “Nordic Research in Visual Arts Education Revisited”. In 1998, I edited an anthology called Nordic Visual Arts Research: A Theoretical and Methodological Review1. In 2006, I invited Associate Professor Helene Illeris, The Danish School of Education; Adjunct Professor Marjo Räsänen, University of Turku (Finland); and Professor Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo University College (Norway), to join me in identifying and comment upon Nordic studies of visual arts educa-tion, published during the last decade. In 2007, Assistant Professor Rósa Kristín Júlíusdóttir, University of Akureyri (Iceland), joined the group. Doctoral student Anna Ekström helped me with logistics and editing.

The need for an up-to-date knowledge base, with essays on national trends and profi les, was felt by all of us. During the review national diff e-rences appeared, which were unexpected to some of us. It was found that the vocabulary that each reviewer used to describe the visual arts education research and its development during the last decade, varied from country to country. The Finnish report is characterized by an art discourse with a frequent use of expressions such as artistic, arts-based, multicultural and contemporary art.

Artistic as a generic term is also quite common in the Swedish report; however, more specifi c references to the art world are absent. Some kind of process (e.g. creative and/or learning process) is referred to both in the Swedish and the Finnish reports.

An eff ort to defi ne aesthetic learning is a salient feature of the Swedish discourse. The concept became central in Denmark in the 1990s and found its way to Sweden primarily by offi cial reports advocating the integration of the visual arts and other aesthetic activities, in the general curriculum.

Visual culture is a central concept in the Danish report, together with media and contemporary art. In the Norwegian report, design stands out as a key concept, supplemented with environmental participation. Environmental education is also a research focus at one of the major sites for teacher training in Finland. As far as Iceland is concerned, research is spread over a broad range of topics, although most studies are in one way or another connected to curriculum issues.

1 Lindström, Lars (Ed.) (1998). Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review. Stockholm Institute of Education (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, 2). See also: Keifer-Boyd, Karen (2003). A review essay: Nordic visual arts research. Studies in Art Education, 44 (2), 178-183.


INTRODUCTION

The fact that a certain concept is not emphasized in one of the following national reports does not mean that it is foreign to art teachers in that par-ticular country. On the contrary, it may have become such a fundamental part of the professional identity that it is taken for granted. Nevertheless, in many respects diff erences between the national reports in this review are striking and probably not a result of mere chance. An obvious explanation may be reviewer bias. There is no such thing as an objective research review. However, the presentation here of fi ve diff erent perspectives is not neces-sarily a sign of weakness. It demonstrates the multiple faces of research in visual arts education today. It testifi es to the fact that visual arts education and research mean diff erent things in diff erent social, cultural and political settings.

One explanation of the national diff erences may be the simple fact that the Finnish post-graduate programme in visual arts education is located at a university of art and design, the Danish one at a pedagogical university, the Norwegian at a school for architecture and design, and the Swedish pro-gramme at a number of university departments for teacher education. The Icelandic post-graduate programmes are off ered only at master’s level for the time being, and are located at faculties of education. If the setting has a pervasive infl uence, one might ask what the consequences will be of the transfer in 2008 of the aesthetic section at the former Stockholm Institute of Education to the Faculty of Science at Stockholm University. An inter-disciplinary centre for visualisation is one option that might take advantage of this new situation.

Are the observed diff erences due to some deeper causes, in addition to the obvious ones mentioned above? Are we standing on the threshold to a post-paradigmatic age where no one can claim to pursue what Thomas Kuhn called “normal science”? If so, we should not expect any scientifi c “revolutions” in the future, at least not within the educational sciences. Does this mean that research on teaching and learning will become boring? Not necessarily!

In the International Journal of Education through Art 2007, John Steers2 portrays the development of art education in the UK, where one move-ment has succeeded the other in an almost boundless sequence. Remains of movements that once had a hegemonic position now exist side by side. Steers’ conclusion is nevertheless hopeful; it could serve as a motto for the research on teaching and learning in the visual arts:

2 Steers, John (2007). The ever-expanding art curriculum – is it teachable or sustainable? International Journal of Education through Art, 3 (2), 141-153.


Developing and cherishing multiple visions of teaching and learning in the arts is not a

licence for idiosyncratic, unaccountable practice. We need a healthy cross-fertilization

of ideas and vigorous critical debate within and beyond the professional community of

arts educators to avoid the very real threat of rejection or atrophy through the sheer

irrelevance of too much current practice.3

Questions about teaching and learning usually have a variety of possible answers, each of which is likely to harbour new questions. They are typi-cally oriented towards making good decisions in complex real-life situations rather than verifying universally true statements. The practical and con-textual character of visual arts education justifi es a rational weighing-up of the pros and cons of various positions, rather than searching for the one superior approach.

Lars Lindström

ProfessorStockholm University, Sweden

3 Steers, 2007. The ever-expanding art curriculum, p. 151.

INTRODUCTION


ISSUES IN VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION

A Conceptual Framework

Lars Lindström

IntroductionThis report is part of a series, funded by the Swedish Research Council, on ämnesdidaktik (“subject-matter didactics”) in various fi elds of knowledge. Thus, two questions should be dealt with to begin with: What is meant by didaktik (“didactics”)? And what is the knowledge base of visual arts educa-tion? The answers given will not only facilitate interdisciplinary compari-sons and approaches; they will also help to defi ne the scope of the present study.

The term didaktik (“didactics”) is the Latin form of the Greek verb didaskein, which refers both to teaching and learning. It was introduced in the 17th Century by Wolfgang Ratke and John Amos Comenius to denote the professio nal knowledge base of teachers. Comenius’ Didactica Opera Omnia, printed in Amsterdam 1657, contained his collected writings, among them the famous Didactica Magna (1630–32). In 2007, i.e. 350 years later, this event was celebrated as the birth of the scientifi c study of teaching and learning. Like some other terms of Continental European origin, such as bildning (Ger. Bildung), the Swedish word didaktik and its Nordic equi-valents are diffi cult to translate into English. Being didactic refers, in Eng-lish, usually to a narrow concept of conveying instruction, often by teaching excessively. Instead, pedagogy will be used in this report as a translation of didaktik, while pedagogik in Swedish and its equivalents in other Nordic languages, will be translated into the English term education.

Pedagogical content knowledgeThere is no defi nition for the term ämnesdidaktik (“subject-matter didac-tics”) that is agreed upon by all. This lack of consensus refl ects diff erent opinions on what are the most essential ingredients in the knowledge base of a professional teacher. These beliefs have important implications for the way in which teacher education is organized. Historically, teacher education



in many countries focused almost exclusively on content knowledge, i.e. the subject matter to be taught. During the late 20th Century, however, the pendulum swung towards a heavy emphasis on teacher competencies and teaching procedures defi ned in general terms, without reference to a specifi c knowledge domain.

In his Presidential Address at the 1985 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Lee Shulman (1986) used the expression “the missing paradigm” to pinpoint the “blind spot with respect to content” (p. 7) that, in his opinion, characterized not only most research on teaching but also the theoretical frameworks in which educational policies were for-mulated. Shulman asked his colleagues rhetorically: “Where did the subject matter go? What happened to the content?” (p. 5)

Shulman (op. cit.) developed a new framework for teacher education by introducing the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Rather than viewing teacher education from the perspective of either content or pedagogy, Shulman believed that teacher training programmes should simultaneously combine elements from both of these knowledge domains. In the present report, Shulman’s integrated concept of PCK will be used as a touchstone to delimit the term ämnesdidaktik from what should more aptly be termed content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, etc.4 PCK, says Shulman (1987),

represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular

topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests

and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge is

the category most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from

that of the pedagogue (p. 8).

Teachers diff er from artists, art historians, art critics, or educational resear-chers, not necessarily in the quality or quantity of their subject-matter knowledge, but in how that knowledge is organized and used. For example, experienced art teachers’ knowledge of the visual arts is structured from a teaching perspective and is used as a basis for helping students to master specifi c skills and to understand specifi c concepts. An artist’s knowledge, on the other hand, is structured from an artistic perspective and is used as a basis for broadening the fi eld, through adding new perspectives or using techniques in new ways.

4 Kåre Slåtten (1998) argues that ämnesdidaktik includes more than the concept of PCK, which tends to focus on the transformation of disciplinary knowledge to representations in the classroom.



Shulman (1986) assumes that most teachers, and secondary school teachers in particular, begin their career with some expertise in the content that they teach. A central question concerns how they transform their mastery in the subject matter into a form that primary or high school students can comprehend. What categories of knowledge can the experienced teacher draw upon in order to promote comprehension among his or her students? In addition to PCK, Shulman (1987) mentions six such categories: content knowledge; general pedagogical knowledge; curriculum knowledge; know-ledge of learners and their characteristics; knowledge of educational and cultural contexts; knowledge of philosophy and history of education.

Visual communication – Visual cultureStudies of visual arts education can be approached by taking either the visual arts or education as the starting point when formulating research questions, choosing conceptual framework, vocabulary, validity checks, etc. Another important dimension is whether the subject matter being taught is mainly defi ned in terms of visual communication or visual culture. See fl ow chart in Figure 1.

Visual Culture

Visual Arts Education

Visual Communication

VisualArts

Education

Figure 1. Research approaches to visual arts education.


The communicative aspect becomes important as soon as one becomes aware of the role of mediation in human life. According to Roger Säljö (2000), “the concept of mediation is (…) very central and maybe that assumption in a socio-cultural tradition which is most diff erent from those of other leading theoretical perspectives” (p. 81). It suggests that the human being does not stand in a direct, immediate and un-interpreted contact with her environ-ment. In human culture, reality is mediated by physical as well as mental/language-based tools.

Nineteenth-century educators commonly used metaphors of literacy when they wrote about learning to draw. Subsequently, however, metaphors of art as language shifted from those focused on comparisons with writing to those comparing art with literature, i.e., reading. Mary Ann Stankiewisz (2003) defi nes the two approaches in the following way:

The metaphor of art as language tends to focus on expression, on making art as parallel to

writing. The metaphor of art as text, on the other hand, emphasized interpretation rather

than creation, reading a work of art for knowledge and moral inspiration (p. 322).

Overlapping the visual arts, there are mediators such as TV, picture books, illustrated newspapers and journals, comics, advertisements, home pages, computer games, photo, video, fi lm, stage design, etc. Competence in using these and other media is sometimes called mediacy, in contrast to the similar, but more narrowly defi ned concept of literacy.

The visual culture approach emphasizes the context rather than the specifi c media of visual arts education, the perception of images rather than their production. In classroom practice, the perspectives of visual communica-tion and visual culture do and should overlap, but for analytical purposes it will make sense to keep them apart.

Stankiewisz (2003) makes the following policy statement:

Liberating visual literacies require critical knowledge of images in their cultural and his-

torical contexts, as well as analyses of power relationships underlying their social con-

struction. Our students need an art education that goes beyond drawing and painting,

beyond technique of formal analysis, toward functional visual literacies that will help

them shape and understand the visual cultures in which they live (ibid.).

The Danish researchers Karsten Arvedsen (2003) and Helene Illeris (2002) criticize the bias, in studies of visual culture, towards interpreting visual arte-facts exclusively through the lenses of sociology and anthropology. According




to Arvedsen (2003), it is as important to understand visual culture not only in terms of analysis, understanding, uncovering, etc, but also in terms of aesthetics, fascination, experience, involvement and participation. That is, the art teacher should be able to shift the perspective from that of an observes to that of a participant.

The knowledge base of visual arts education“Mere content knowledge,” Shulman (1986) says, “is likely to be as useless pedagogically as content-free skill” (p. 8). The key to distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies in the intersection of content and peda-gogy, he contends (Shulman, 1987, p. 15). Figure 2 uses a concept map to illustrate elements in the knowledge base of visual arts education. The Venn diagram, in the centre, is made up of two overlapping ovals, which illustrate the relationship between the visual arts (content knowledge), education (general pedagogical knowledge) and visual arts education (pedagogical con-tent knowledge, PCK). It should be expected that the overlap between the two ovals is greater for the experienced educator than for the novice teacher. That is, content and pedagogy become increasingly integrated, resulting in greater PCK development.

Visual communication

EducationThe visual arts Visual arts education Education through art

Art appreciation & museum education

Educational assessment

Multimodal teaching & learningCurriculum study in art

Philosophy of art education

Arts-based research

Child & youth study

Theories of learning and meaning-making

Visual culture

Arts education policyVisual ethnography

Discourse analysis

Theory & history of art, media and design

Picture analysis

Skills & procedures in making art

Figure 2: A knowledge base of visual arts education

The concepts surrounding the Venn diagram exemplify contents in the knowledge base of visual arts education, with an emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge. Concepts to the right tend to have their origin in edu-cation, while concepts to the left more often have their roots in the visual arts discourse. Concepts at the top tend to focus on visual culture, while concepts at the bottom are more concerned with visual communication.


The conceptual framework (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 18-22) displayed in Figure 2, is not intended to be complete, to summarize a specifi c Nordic perspective, or to propagate a particular philosophy. Below, in exemplifying the concepts chosen, there is a bias towards Swedish and American studies, i.e. those bodies of research with which I am most acquainted. Researchers with another intellectual background would probably have organized the knowledge base diff erently. However, regardless of whether one fi nds the design of this map useful or not, it may stimulate the reader to articulate his or her own preferred way to understand the knowledge resources of visual arts education. Indeed, the framework should be thought of as a dynamic structure, which can be elaborated in many directions for multiple purposes.

Arts education policyArts education policy occupies a central position in the map and is a natural starting point as we move clockwise around the core of visual arts educa-tion. Policy documents usually relate what happens in school to a wider arena of cultural and educational policies, linking art education to demo-cracy, multiculturalism, creative and critical thinking, etc. In the Swedish national curriculum (Skolverket, 2000), for example, visual arts education is explicitly linked to civil rights:

Knowledge about pictures and visual communication are important conditions for an

active participation in the social life. An advanced capacity to make pictures facilitates for

children and youth to exercise their cultural freedom of speech, which includes the right

to formulate opinions of one’s own as well as having an infl uence. The school supports

the right of children and adolescents to be full participants in the art world and cultural

life, and warrants them, together with the society’s cultural life within and outside its

institutions, the right to multiple forms of expression (p. 8).

In the Norwegian national curriculum, the fi eld of art and design education in the compulsory school is linked to the idea of democratic participation in developing the local environment. Participation assumes skills and know-ledge since decisions are often made on the bases of pictorial representa-tions, such as architectural drawings (Nielsen & Digranes, 2007).

Child and youth studyChild and youth study has deep roots in the fi eld of art education. From about 1885 to the 1960s interest mainly focused on children’s drawings. Until the 1920s, many attempts were made to classify children’s drawings



into developmental sequences. The most important contributions to this research area were made by Georg Kerschensteiner (1905) who studied thousands of drawings made by German school children, George Luquet (1913; 1927) who subsequently infl uenced the work of Jean Piaget, and the Norwegian pioneer Helga Eng (1918; 1926). During the fi rst half of the 20th Century it was widely assumed that drawings were directly expressive of concepts; from 1940 onwards researchers tended to believe that drawings were directly expressive of emotional states.

The problem with these approaches, as well as with later studies by Viktor Lowenfeld, Rudolf Arnheim and others, is their focus on the surface struc-ture of the fi nished drawing, regardless of the processes by which children construct their drawings. The production process has been studied in depth by Norman Freeman (1980) whose work has restored children’s art to a central position in cognitive psychology. Research in the Nordic countries has in recent years explored the potentials of socio-cultural theories to describe and ana-lyse what is going on when children design images. Eva Änggård (2005), for example, looks at children’s image-making with fresh eyes, by shifting focus so that the drawing activity becomes “ground” and the peer-group interaction becomes the meaning-making “fi gure”. These shifts from the surface struc-ture of the drawing to the design process and its social context are related to parallel shifts of dominant theories of learning and meaning-making.

Today, the domain of child and youth study related to the visual arts includes much more than the study of children’s drawings. The aesthe-tics of everyday life became a focus of especially German research during the 1970s. Helmut Hartwig (1980), for example, studied forms of aesthetic praxis among adolescents and recognized many mechanisms that we use to associate with “art”. Kirsten Drotner (1991) in Denmark was interested in how young people use aesthetic modes of expression to create as well as to interpret cultural manifestations. In Sweden, Erling Bjurström (1997) emphasised the importance of “style” for identity formation. Being a “hip hoper”, for example, is related to graffi ti, certain kinds of clothes, musical preferences and so forth. The present professor of visual arts education at the University College of Arts, Crafts and Design in Stockholm, Anette Göthlund, wrote her doctoral thesis in this tradition. Her thesis “focuses on how the girls express their becoming feminine, as adult women, through aesthetic practices such as aestheticizing their everyday environment and ‘style experiments’” (Göthlund, 1997).



Art appreciationArt appreciation, i.e. how we make sense of artistic pictures, has puzzled and intrigued philosophers and artists for centuries (Winner, 1982). With the rise of museum education as a discipline of its own, a growing body of empirical studies has emerged. In 1997, the Danish psychologist Bjarne Sode Funch published a comprehensive survey of the research on art appreciation. He identifi ed fi ve diff erent types of art appreciation, each one representing a legitimate approach to visual art. In future research, these conceptions of the phenomenon should be taken into consideration in order to further our understanding of how diff erent works of art can be appreciated in diff erent ways and for diff erent reasons. Funch concludes that further studies will be needed to establish the position of each type of art appreciation in a comprehensive psychological theory. Funch’s principal contribution to such a synthesis is an “existential-phenomenological thesis” of aesthetic expe-rience, which acknowledges the signifi cance of individuals’ life experiences in the encounter with distinct forms of art.

Among the many studies reviewed by Funch (op. cit.), Michael Parsons’ (1987a-b) phenomenological work on how we understand art is the most well-known one in the Nordic countries. Parsons classifi ed people’s respon-ses to paintings in four categories based upon what they primarily were looking for in a work of art: subject matter (including ideas of beauty and realism); emotional expression; medium, form and style; and the nature of judgement. Parsons categories have inspired everything from a study of pre-school children’s art preferences in Norway (Andersen, 1998) to a national evaluation of pictorial studies (visual arts) in the Swedish compulsory school (Marner, Örtegren & Segerholm, 2005).

Helene Illeris (2004) at the Danish University of Education reviewed ten years of Nordic studies and curriculum guides on art appreciation and museum education. She concludes that although some Nordic contribu-tions reach a high level of quality, the fi eld as a whole can be characterized as “diff use, fragmented and dependent on the interest and input of individuals” (p. 66).

Education through artEducation through art has been a catch-phrase in the community of art edu-cators since Herbert Read (1943) in the United Kingdom published his well-known book with this title. The aim of education, according to Read, is to nurture “artists”, i.e. human beings who are familiar with various modes of expression. Behind this and similar expressions, such as “Arts as Education” (Goldberg & Phillips, 1992), lies a belief that the arts are fundamental to



education, not only for their own sake but as means of expression, commu-nication, imagination, observation, perception, and thought. Among oth-ers, the arts are claimed to inspire discipline, dedication, and creativity.

However, the existence of transfer across the curriculum has still to be proven. Elliot Eisner (1998) at Stanford, a prominent researcher in the visual arts, published a famous research review under the title: “Does Experience in the Arts Boost Academic Achievement?” He found “no good evidence that such transfer occurs [unless] what we count as evidence is no more than anecdotal reports that are often designed for purposes of advocacy” (p. 10). Subsequent independent reviews by Caroline Sharp (1998) in Britain, Volkert Haanstra (2000) in the Netherlands, and Ellen Winner & Monica Cooper (2000) in the United States arrived at similar conclusions.

Philosophy of art educationIn the natural sciences, theories claim to describe how the world is; we assess them as being right or wrong, rather than as, say, modern or postmodern, traditional or progressive. In the social sciences, theories of teaching or lear-ning themselves contain normative assumptions about how human beings should develop; it is not obvious that these theories can be true or false in the same sense as theories in the natural sciences (e.g. Carr, 2003). This does not mean that such accounts cannot be rationally evaluated. In philosophy of art education arguments pro et con various prescriptions as to how to teach, what to learn, etc. are scrutinized.

A Nordic contribution to this genre is, for example, Billede, pædagogik og magt [Picture, pedagogy, and power] by Helene Illeris (2002). The author is looking, through “postmodern spectacles”, at the fi eld of art education in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. These lenses off er a relativistic stance in relation to opinions that have been taken for granted by traditional and modernist-inclined scholars and practitioners.

Elliot Eisner’s The arts and the creation of mind (2002), on the other hand, examines from an implicit modernist standpoint, how the arts can contribute to the growth of mind. The arts, Eisner argues,

… can serve as models of what educational aspiration and practice might be at its very

best. To be able to think about teaching as an artful undertaking, to conceive of learning

as having aesthetic features, to regard the design of an educational environment as an

artistic task – these ways of thinking about some of the commonplaces of education

could have profound consequences for redesigning the practice of teaching and recon-

ceiving the context in which teaching occurs (pp. xii-xiii).



Multimodal teaching and learningEisner’s vision is shared by many educators these days, some of whom are advocating what Gunther Kress and co-workers (2006) at the University of London call multimodal teaching and learning. According to these scholars, learning involves the transformation of information across diff erent com-municative systems (“modes”), e.g. from speech to image. In an offi cial report on teacher training, published by the Swedish Government (SOU 1999:63), the commissioners say that all teachers should be familiar with aesthetics, defi ned as “knowledge received by the senses”. Children and youth should be off ered the opportunity, they propose, “to refl ect upon, analyse, demonstrate, and express what they know in various ways through diff erent ‘languages’” (p. 56).

Anders Marner (2005; Marner & Örtegren, 2003) applies socio-cultural and semiotic theories to confront the verbalism in school with the mul-timodality in media and the multicultural society in which we live. Lena Aulin-Gråhamn, Magnus Persson and Jan Thavenius (2004) criticize a “modest aesthetics”, characterized by the distribution of “good” art and engaging students in so-called free creative expression. This approach, they believe, has kept the arts out of the way of the more controversial issues that are dealt with in a “radical aesthetics”, characterized by a critical inquiry into big issues. In an elaborate argument, they focus on “integrating the visual arts in the curriculum”.

Arthur Efl and (2002) reminds us that “works of art are almost always about something else other than art (…) it is also a refl ection of the times and culture from which it came, and the understanding of such a work means seeing it in relation to the world that gave rise to it” (p. 132). However, since an aesthetic medium is not a neutral carrier of a message, Iworld add that art education has to be about art, too. Even if the medium is not the message, as Marshall McLuhan (2003) would have it, it is far more than a carrier or projection screen (cf. Marner & Örtegren, 2003).

Educational assessmentEducational assessment in visual arts education has been a controversial is-sue. When the National Test was introduced in the Netherlands a couple of decades ago at upper secondary school level, some art teachers feared that “the introduction of objectives, norms and criteria will kill creativity, enthusiasm and motivation; it will reduce art to just another academic exercise” (Schönau, 1996, p. 157). Similar protests had been raised among teachers in England some ten years earlier than in the Netherlands (Steers, 1996).



However, new modes of assessment, including process-folios (Gardner, 1989), have made assessment more valid and useful. In Sweden, for example, Lindström (2006) made a study of young people’s creativity in the visual arts from preschool to upper secondary school. The assessment was based on both product criteria and process criteria (investigative work, inventiveness, ability to use models, capacity for self-assessment). A high inter-rater relia-bility was found. In approximately 3,100 comparisons between the young person’s own teacher and a co-assessor, I from another school, there was a 78 per cent agreement (≤ 2 steps on a twelve-grade scale).

Curriculum study in artCurriculum study in art raises the basic questions: What knowledge is most worthwhile? Why is it worthwhile? How is it acquired or constructed? As noted by William Schubert (1986), the answers “depend on specifi c situa-tions. They are never fully made, but always in the process of being created and reconstructed to fi t needs of changing circumstances” (p. 2).

Especially in the United States, the answers have been infl uenced by Jerome Bruner’s landmark study The Process of Education (1960). Bruner argued that the high road to learning leads through the discovery of the basic ideas and concepts of important subjects. The guiding idea was that learners should emulate the procedures of practitioners in the disciplines. Many art educa-tors adopted these ideas, making claims that the learning of art, too, involves thinking and acting in the manner of practitioners – with art historians, art critics, and philosophers of art being added to the standard model of the artist (Levi & Smith, 1991, p. 182).

In the Nordic countries the breaking up from the philosophy of free crea-tive expression involved the introduction of basic ideas and concepts from semiotics and the socio-cultural theories of Lev Vygotsky, Mikhail Bakhtin and others. Most curriculum studies are occupied by analysing various answers to the questions of what and how to teach, and why. However, a few studies in art education, such as the Swedish dissertation by Sten Pettersson and Gunnar Åsén (1989), have in addition tried to understand and explain what is actually going on in the classroom.

Visual communicationDuring the early 1970s, in Germany and the Nordic countries, the focus of art education began to shift from psychological studies of art appreciation and free creative expression to semiotic analyses of visual communication



(Åsén, 2006; Pohjakallio, 2006; Illeris, 2002). In the 1980 Swedish Compul-sory School Curriculum, the name of the subject changed from Drawing to Pictorial Studies (Sw. Bild), and the subject was completely redefi ned at all levels (see next chapter). In Finland, like in Sweden, a semiotic view of the picture appeared around 1970. Since the 1960s, semiotic writers inspired by Roland Barthes’ (1964) pioneering analysis of an advertisement for Panzani pasta, claimed that the laws of linguistics could be applied not only to ver-bal language but to other sign systems as well, including pictures. From a semiotic point of view, visual arts are cultural signs, too. Semiotic studies of photographic realistic pictures found that the credibility of these pictures is based, like in other forms of language, on agreements and conventions (cf. Lindberg, 2006).

According to Pirkko Pohjakallio (2006), Finnish visual arts education in the early 1970s emphasized the possibility of manipulating and indoctri-nating through the pictorial language. There was a concern for how mass media shaped people’s view of the world in ways they did not control. The ability to “read” pictures critically became a central objective of art edu-cation, and the communicative and instrumental signifi cance of the picture was emphasized in the educational discourse.

Recently, Anders Marner in Sweden constructed a sociosemiotic frame-work, inspired by Charles Peirce and Lev Vygotsky, to study the role of medi ation in school settings. Marner (2005; Marner & Örtegren, 2003) introduced the terms medium-specifi c and medium-neutral to distinguish between diff erent kinds of mediation. He claimed that aesthetical subjects, like the language arts, have their own specifi c “home medium” to take care of. General talk about “culture” and “aesthetic learning processes” may mislead people to think that there is some kind of overarching competence that may replace the medium-specifi c competence of teachers in the visual arts, craft/design, music, etc.

Arts-based researchSee Marjo Räsänens chapter in this report and Patricia Leavy’s (2008) com-prehensive introduction to arts-based research practices.

Skills and procedures in making artSkills and procedures in making art have always belonged to the core of art education. To elevate painting to the status of a liberal art, theorists begin-ning with Leon Alberti in 1436, transferred the Aristotelian idea of imita-tion from the realm of poetry to that of painting. Furthermore, the concept



of the academy was appropriated and developed as an alternative to the app-renticeship system encouraged by the guilds. By 1490, Lorenzo the Magni-fi cent in Florence established a school for artists, among them the young Michelangelo, to let them copy ancient sculptures in his collection. The aim was not only to learn from the past but also to stimulate innate artistic gifts (Haverkamp-Begemann, 1988). The term making addresses the shaping of a broad spectrum of artefacts “from the spoon to the city”. It has been seen as the common denominator for the professions taught in Scandinavian schools of architecture and design. Among these making professions, Halina Dunin-Woyseth and Liv Merete Nielsen (2004) in Norway, count architecture, design, urban design, spatial planning, landscape architecture, product design, interactive design as well as the pedagogically oriented practical-aesthetic professions that include art and design education, all of them anchored in the shaping of a remarkable variety and volume of artefacts. This idea of integration is mirrored in pri-mary and lower secondary education in Norway, where art, design and craft have been merged into one school subject since 1960, quite diff erent from the visualarts policies in the other Nordic countries.

Dunin-Woyseth and Jan Michl (2001) propose that there is a case for sustaining and maintaining knowledge of skills and procedures in these pro-fessions through a discipline of its own, a making discipline. They believe…

that by developing the disciplinary kind of making knowledge, accessible to other disciplines

with their inherent tradition of organised scepticism, and of ongoing criticism within an

inter-subjective discourse, the disciplinary constructed making knowledge would provide

for a more informed and knowledgeable practice which is in great demand in a time of

change such as ours (p. 9).

In the Nordic countries today, art colleges in cooperation with universities are developing programmes of advanced studies in visual arts education. The fi nal examination consists of both a research-based thesis and an artistic project which address the same question and inform each other in the their results. Each student has two advisers, one for the thesis and a second one for the art project. In Norway, where this model has been applied during three decades for graduate art teachers, projects for artistic development have been most successful when their aim have been 1) to demonstrate that a cer-tain material or an old technique can be used for new purposes, or 2) to try out and make experiments with old motifs in new ways (Danbolt, Nygren-Landgärds & Lindström, 2001).



Picture analysisPicture analysis is a corner stone of an education preparing for visual literacy and visual communication. From the early 1970s, more than a dozen books on picture analysis were published by art educators at the Swedish Univer-sity College of Arts, Crafts and Design, in Stockholm. Most of these texts applied semiotic concepts and techniques to analyse pictures from popular culture. These instrumental pictures lend themselves well to analyses of manifest and hidden messages; however, a unique work of art required an-other approach, e.g. inspired by Erwin Panofsky instead of those applied by the early Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco. Gert Z Nordström (1984), the fi rst Swedish professor of visual arts education, looked upon the semiotic analysis and the methods used by art historians as supplementary.

In the United States, where art education has mainly concentrated on fi ne and multicultural art, Edmund Feldman (1987) outlined several stages that the critic of a work of art should pass. The fourth and fi nal stage, the judge-ment, is where many novices start, according to Feldman. In order to make a judgement, however, you do not only have to know what you are judging, that is, describe, analyse and interpret the piece of work that you are looking at. You must also have a rationale for your judgement. Good arguments, that is, ones that are open to discussion, are not taken out of nowhere but are based on a philosophy of art or an idea about why art is important.

Theory and history of art, media and designDo children produce art? What about an artisan? A designer? A press photo-grapher? – These and other questions concerning whether particular objects or events are “really art” are often looked upon as a concern for the philo-sopher. However, such questions can also be answered within the frame-work of theory and history of art, media and design. A sociologist, for example, would answer those kinds of questions by analysing when, where, and how participants in various social worlds, including the “art world”, would draw the lines that distinguish what they want and do not want to be taken as “art” (Becker, 1982). From this point of view paradoxes may appear. Thus, artist Andrea Fraser (2005) makes the following claim in an article called “From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique”:

It is artists – as much as museums or the market – who, in their very eff orts to escape the

institution of art, have driven its expansion. With each attempt to evade the limits of

institutional determination, to embrace an outside, to redefi ne art or reintegrate it into

everyday life, to reach “everyday” people and work in the “real” world, we expand our

frame and bring more of the world into it. But we never escape it (p. 282).



In 1976, Arthur Efl and published a classic paper called “The School Art Style: A Functional Analysis”. The school art style had remained essentially the same since the 1920s and though it did not exist anywhere else except in schools, it was spread throughout the world. No other art style had nearly as many practioners or as strong social support. Still, the school art style did not seem to be a tool for teaching children anything about art beyond the school, though this surely was its recognized manifest function. However, schools also have latent functions (Merton, 1957), which go unrecognized even by those who carry out these functions.

Efl and speculated that one of the functions of the school art style was to provide behaviours and products that “have the look” of a liberal, humane, and creative education while, in fact, Art was used as a therapy, minimizing the psychological costs of the deadening routine of school life. The demand for such a counterbalance may explain why eff orts to make art education more rigorous and intellectually challenging, e.g. by introducing art criti-cism or history, met with resistance. The last thing that many art teachers felt they could do, was to make Art another academic discipline. Art was supposed to be fun, which could be accomplished by using easy materials like coloured paper and paints, a range of subjects and themes to remind the children of what they were supposed to do, a prohibition against copying, or even looking at other art. The popularity of the method was enhanced by the fact that it made few professional demands on the teacher. They only had to follow the Austrian “inventor” of the school art style, Franz Cizek, when he said about his method: “All I do is take the lid off , when most teachers clamp it on”.

Discourse analysesThirty years later in a discourse analysis of how teachers and head teachers describe the Swedish compulsory school and its aesthetic activities, Monica Lindgren (2006) arrived at similar conclusions. Aesthetic activities are described in terms of their functions, notably the therapeutic one, and in terms of what the “normal” child is supposed to do, rather than to know or understand. Lindgren summarizes: “It is taken for granted that children should ‘have fun’ in connection with aesthetic activities, since other (‘acade-mic’) activities in school are regarded as less ‘fun’ (p. 140).” This discourse on the pleasurable aesthetics has previously been observed, and questioned, as a foun-dation for arts education by Swedish researchers such as Jan Thavenius (2004) and Tomas Saar (2005). What teachers and head teachers did not talk about, in Lindgren’s study, turned out to be the academic contents of various art



disciplines. Analyses as those by Efl and and Lindgren, like other theoretical approaches to visual arts education, do not tell the professional what to do, but they may help her to make more informed choices, by gaining a deeper understanding of what she actually does and why.

Visual ethnographyVisual culture and visual ethnography (often under the umbrella of cultural stu-dies) are the markers of contemporary art education in the Nordic countries. Rather than being regarded as an aspect of the knowledge base for visual arts education, visual culture is often looked upon as its framework, thus reducing art, media, design and other visual domains into sub-disciplines. Billy Ehn and Orvar Löfgren (2001) confess to a pragmatic approach to cultural studies:

Previously we asked ourselves: “How does this make sense? How should we interpret,

read, go beyond the visible?”. Today we would prefer to add: “How does this phenomenon

aff ect us? What consequences will this idea or routine have, how does it turn our at-

tention and organize our practice?”. With questions like that, the analyses will focus on

emotion and action as well as language and thought. The point is to put diff erent perspec-

tives on cultural analysis side-by-side, to vary between approaches and entry points. (…)

When you change spectacles and look at the world through diff erent theoretical lenses,

something will emerge in sharp relief, while other things will pass out of our sight and

become blurred (p. 14).

In an introduction to visual ethnography, Patrik Aspers, Paul Feuhrer and Árni Sverresson (2004) argue that photographs, more than other pictures, are about everyday life; everyone can produce them and they exist every-where. Thus, studied critically, they may inform us about how people live. There are two ways in which social scientists approach the visual: the fi rst is – like Aspers et al. (op. cit.) – to collect existing visual artefacts and to investi-gate their production, uses and interpretations; the second is to manufac-ture visual artefacts as part of the process of doing research. A study by Ulla Lind and Gunnar Åsén (1999) of students’ pictures of school as an arena for knowing and peer relationships illustrate the latter approach. Pat Thomson (2007) provides an excellent, up-to-date resource on the methodological, ethical, representational and theoretical issues surrounding the promising fi eld of “visual” or “image-based” research with children and young people.



Visual cultureThe concept of visual culture has assumed an important role in visual arts education during the last 10 years both in North America and in Europe. “Visual culture”, however, does not represent a single perspective or ap-proach. The American art educator Kerry Freedman (2003) defi nes visual culture as “all that is humanly formed and sensed through vision or visua-lization and shapes the way we live our lives. (…) It includes the fi ne arts, tribal arts, advertising, popular fi lm and video, folk art, television and other performance, housing and apparel design, computer game and toy design, and other forms of visual production and communication (p. 1).”

In the Nordic countries visual culture has been a central concept for research in visual arts education, especially in Denmark and Sweden. In Sweden, former professor of art education in Stockholm Karin Becker (2001), introduced a concept of visual culture in education based on a specifi c anthropological understanding, which narrowed down its defi nition. An art education guided by this concept would have to abandon the central role given to the picture and to picture analysis as the primary research tool. The searchlight, instead, had to be moved into the opposite direction, at those cultures where pictures are produced and being used. The defi nition of a picture is not obvious, she said, but has to be a research question by itself.

Anna Sparrman (2006) uses the term visual culture in a study of children’s meaning-making in their encounters with the visible world. The word “cul-ture” will remind us that the way human beings see things, is created and recreated by visual codes in interpersonal interaction, which tell us who is allowed to be seen, what is allowed to be seen, when it is allowed to be seen, and who has the privilege to look (Rogoff , 1998).

In Denmark the research unit Visual Culture in Education, formed in 2002 by the associate professors Mie Buhl, Ingelise Flensborg and Helene Illeris, has elaborated a constructivist understanding of visual culture, based on the notions of visual phenomena (what is sensed through vision), visual event (the way in which constructions of visual relationships are established) and visual culture as a strategy of refl ection (the operation of choices regarding the establishment of visual relationships) (Buhl, Flensborg and Illeris, 2003; 2004a; 2004b). This approach to art education explores the ways in which we interact with our surroundings and each other through the construction of “ways of seeing” which include both the image (“the viewed”), the produ-cer or recipient (“the viewer”) and the social and cultural contexts in which the acts of production and reception of pictures are performed.



This reframing of cultural studies may explain why Hasse Hansson, Sten-Gösta Karlsson and Gert Z Nordström have changed the title of their Swedish textbook from Bildspråkets grunder [Foundations of Pictorial Language; 1992] to Seendets språk (The Language of Seeing; 2006).

Arts- and praxis-based approachesThe conceptual framework illustrated here was introduced as a heuristic tool or a dynamic structure, which can be elaborated in many directions and used for several purposes. In retrospect, considering its applications in the present research review, it seems to function quite well in charting the knowledge base in art education, pointing at both salient traits and blind spots. Suggestions for further elaboration of the framework have been put forward. Some concepts, such as multicultural education can be incorporated in existing categories (e.g. visual ethnography); others, for example app-lications of information and community technology (ICT) or social issues as themes in art education, may justify the addition of new categories. The handbooks edited by Elliot Eisner and Michael Day (2004) and Liora Bresler (2007) are excellent resources for readers who want to get a still more diver-sifi ed picture of issues and themes in research on visual arts education.

The national reports below raise important issues that cut across the cate-gories in Figure 2. They include passages about arts-based and praxis-based research. Being arts-based refers to the use of ”visuals as data and as a form of investigation and reporting” ( See Räsänen´s, national report, below). Being praxis-based refers to approaches that focus on interaction and learning in the context of nurseries and classrooms (e.g. Bendroth Karlsson, 1996; Löfstedt, 1999; Änggård, 2005). Lee Shulman’s (1986) framework of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) highlights the need to combine the arts- and praxis-based approaches, which separately tend to be either irrelevant or too abstract to inform the teaching and learning of visual arts.

References

Andersen, Mildrid (1998). Førskulebarn vel kunstbilde: Ei undersøking om barns kunstbildeprefe-

ransar [Preschool children’s visual art preferences]. Høgskolen Stord/Haugesund, Norw.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2003). Hur ingår visuell kultur i bildämnet? [How is visual culture included

in the subject of visual arts?]. Praktik och teori, No. 3, pp. 22-32.

Aspers, Patrik, Feuhrer, Paul & Sverresson, Árni (Eds.). (2004). Bild och samhälle: visuell analys

som vetenskaplig metod [Picture and society: visual analysis as scientifi c method]. Lund, Sw.:

Studentlitteratur.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena, Persson, Magnus & Thavenius, Jan (2004). Skolan och den radikala estetiken

[School and the radical aestitics]. Lund, Sw.: Studentlitteratur.



Barthes, Roland (1964). Rhétorique de l’image [Rhetoric of the picture]. Communications, 4, 40-51.

Becker, Howard (1982). Arts worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Becker, Karin (2001). En bildlärarutbildning för 2000-talets skola: utmaningar och förnyelse-

försök [A visual arts teacher education for a school in the 21st century: challenges and

attempts at renewal]. In E. Hemlin (Ed.), Förståelse och inlevelse i lärandet: rapport från ett

seminarium om konstens och kulturens roll i skola och lärarutbildning (pp. 20-27). Hedemora,

Sw.: Gidlund i samarbete med Riksbankens jubileumsfond.

Bendroth Karlsson, Marie (1996). Bildprojekt i förskola och skola – estetisk verksamhet och

pedagogiska dilemman [Visual arts projects in preschool and school: Aesthetical activity and

educational dilemmas]. Linköping University, Sw., Linköping Studies in Arts and Science,

No. 150, 1996.

Bjurström, Erling (1997). Högt & lågt – Smak och stil i ungdomskulturen [High and low – Taste and

style in youth culture]. Stockholm University, Doktorsavhandlingar från JMK, 5. (Diss.)

Bresler, Liora (Ed.). (2007). International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, 2 vols.

Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer.

Bruner, Jerome (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Buhl, Mie, Flensborg, Ingelise & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (2003). Visuel kultur [Visual culture] [Special issue]. Unge Pædagoger, 7-8.

Buhl, Mie, Flensborg, Ingelise & Illeris, Helene (2004a). The Danish Research Unit: Visual Cul-

ture in Education, InSEA News, 9(3), 10-11.

Buhl, Mie, Flensborg, Ingelise & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (2004b). Visual culture in education

[Special Issue]. Nordisk Pedagogik, 4.

Carr, David (2003). Making sense of education. An introduction to the philosophy and theory of

education and teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Danbolt, Gunnar, Nygren-Landgärds, Christina, & Lindström, Lars (2001). Hovedfag i forming

ved Høgskolen i Oslo og Høgskolen i Telemark, avdeling Notodden, samt hovedfag i samisk

kunsthåndverk ved Høgskolen i Oslo. Vedlegg [Master in art education at Oslo and Telemark

University College including duodji at Oslo University College. Appendix]. In Norgesnettrådet

(Ed.), Evaluering av huvudfag ved statlige høgskolar uten paralleller i universitetssystemet.

Vedlegg (Vol. 5, pp. 51-61). Oslo, Norw.: Norgesnettrådet.

Drotner, Kirsten (1991). At skabe sig – selv. Ungdom, aestetik, pedagogik [To create your – self.

Youth, aesthetics, education]. Copenhagen, Den.: Gyldendal.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Michl, Jan (2001). Towards a disciplinary identity of the making

professions: an introduction. Research Magazine (Oslo School of Architecture), No. 4, 1-20.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (2004). Preface. Research Magazine (Oslo

School of Architecture and Design), No. 6, 5-9.

Efl and, Arthur D. (1976). The school art style: a functional analysis. Studies in Art Education,

17(2), 37-44.

Efl and, Arthur (2002). Art and cognition. Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Ehn, Billy & Löfgren, Orvar (2001). Kulturanalyser [Cultural analyses]. Malmö, Sw.: Gleerups.



Eisner, Elliot (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Art Education,

51(1), 7-15.

Eisner, Elliot (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eisner, Elliot & Day, Michael (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of research and policy in art education.

Mahwah, NJ: National Art Education Association.

Eng, Helga (1918). Kunstpædagogik [Art education]. Kristiania, Den.: Aschehoug.

Eng, Helga (1926). Barntegning [Children’s drawings]. Oslo, Norw.: Cappelen.

Feldman, Edmund (1987). Varieties of visual experience. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Publishers.

Fraser, Andrea (2005). From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique. Art Forum,

September, pp. 278-283.

Freedman, Kerry (2003). Teaching visual culture. Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Freeman, Norman H. (1980). Strategies of representation in young children: analysis of spatial skills

and drawing processes. London: Academic Press.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (1997). The psychology of art appreciation. University of Copenhagen, Den.,

Museum Tusculanum Press.

Gardner, Howard (1989). Zero-based arts education: an introduction to ARTS PROPEL. Studies

in Art Education, 30(2), 71-83.

Goldberg, Merryl Ruth & Phillips, Ann (1992). Arts as education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

Educational Review.

Göthlund, Anette (1997). Bilder av tonårsfl ickor. Om estetik och identitetsarbete [Pictures of

teenage girls. On aesthetics and identity work]. Linköping University, Sw., Linköping Studies

in Arts and Science, 167. (Diss.)

Haanstra, Volkert (2000). Dutch studies of the eff ect of Arts education programs on school

success. Studies in Arts Education, 42(1), 20-35.

Hansson, Hasse, Karlsson, Sten-Gösta & Nordström, Gert Z (1992). Bildspråkets grunder [Foun-

dations of pictorial language]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Hansson, Hasse, Karlsson, Sten-Gösta & Nordström, Gert Z (2006). Seendets språk [The language

of seeing]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Hartwig, Helmut (1980). Jugendkultur. Ästhetische Praxis in der Pubertät [Youth culture.

Aesthetic practice at the age of puberty]. Reinbeck bei Hamburg, Ger.: Rowohlt.

Haverkamp-Begemann, Egbert (1988). Creative copies. Interpretive drawings from Michelangelo to

Picasso. New York: The Drawing Center.

Illeris, Helene (2002). Billede, pædagogik og magt [Picture, pedagogy, and power]. Frederiksberg,

Den.: Samfundslitteratur.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Kunstpædagogisk forskning og formidling i Norden 1995–2004 [Nordic

research in visual arts education in museums and galleries 1995–2004]. Skärhamn, Sw.: The

Nordic Watercolor Museum.

Kerschensteiner, Georg M. (1905). Die Entwicklung der Zeichnerischen Begabung [The development

of drawing talent]. Munich, Ger.: Carl Greber.



Kress, Gunther, Jewitt, Carey, Ogborn, Jon & Tsatsarelis, Charalampos (2006). Multimodal

teaching and learning. London: Routlegde.

Leavy, Patricia (2008). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. London: Routledge.

Levi, Albert William & Smith, Ralph A. (1991). Art education. A critical necessity. Urban:

University of Illinois Press.

Lind, Ulla & Åsén, Gunnar (Eds.). (1999). En annan skola. Elevers bilder av skolan som kunskapsrum

och social arena [A diff erent school. Students’ pictures of school as a room for knowledge and

social arena].Lindberg, Stefan F. (2006). Det fotografi ska bildspråket [The pictorial language of photography].

Malmö: Liber.

Lindgren, Monica (2006). Att skapa ordning för det estetiska i skolan [Bringing order to aesthetics

in school]. Göteborg University, Sw., Konstnärliga fakulteten [Art Monitor).

Lindström, Lars (2006). Creativity: What is it? Can you assess it? Can it be taught? Inter national

Journal of Art & Design Education (JADE), 25(1), 53-66.

Luquet, George H. (1913). Les dessins d’un enfant [The drawings of a child]. Paris: Alcan.

Luquet, George H. (1927). Le dessin enfantin [The childish drawing]. Paris: Alcan.

Löfstedt, Ulla (1999). Bildskapande verksamhet i förskolan [Creative art activities in preschool]. Jönköping University, Jönköping University Press. (Licentiate thesis)

Marner, Anders (2005). Möten & medieringar – estetiska ämnen och läroprocesser i ett semiotiskt

och sociokulturellt perspektiv [Meetings & mediations – Aesthetic subject matter and learning

processes in a semiotic and sociocultural perspective]. Umeå University, Sw. (Monographs

on Journal of Research in Teacher Education)

Marner, Anders & Örtegren, Hans (2003). En kulturskola för alla – estetiska ämnen och läro-

processer i ett mediespecifi kt och medieneutralt perspektiv [A culture school for all – Aestetic

subject matter and learning processes in a media specifi c and media neutral perspective]. Forskning i fokus, 16. Stockholm: Myndigheten för skolutveckling/Liber.

Marner, Anders, Örtegren, Hans & Segerholm, Christina (2005). Nationella utvärderingen av

grundskolan 2003 (NU-03). Ämnesrapport i Bild [National evaluation of the compulsory school

in 2003. The report of visual arts]. Umeå University, Sw., Institutionen för estetiska ämnen.

McLuhan, Marshall (2003). Understanding media: the extensions of man [Critical ed.]. Corte

Madera, CA: Gingko Press.

Merton, Robert K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.

Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. Michael. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Nielsen, Liv Merete & Digranes, Ingvild (2007). User participation – real infl uence or hostage

taking? In E. Bohemia, K. Hilton, C. McMahon & A. Clarke (Eds.), Shaping the future?

Proceedings from the 9th engineering & product design education international conference,

Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 13-14 september 2007 (pp. 305-310). Newcastle, UK:

Northumbria University, Headleys Ltd.

Nordström, Gert Z. & Romilson, Christer (1973). Bilden, skolan och samhället [Picture, school,

and society]. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers.



Nordström, Gert Z (1984). Bildspråk och bildanalys [Pictorial language and picture analysis].

Stockholm: Prisma.

Parsons, M. J. (1987a). How we understand art: a cognitive developmental account of aesthetic expe-

rience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Parsons, M. J. (1987b). Talk about a painting: A cognitive developmental analysis. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 21(1), 37-55.

Pettersson, Sten & Åsén, Gunnar (1989). Bildundervisning och det pedagogiska rummet [Visual

arts education and the educational room]. Stockholm: Högskolan för lärarutbildning, insti-

tutionen för pedagogik, (Diss.)

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (2006). Art Education, why? The identities of Finnish art teachers and their

subject. Paper presented at the International InSEA Congress, 1-5 March in Viseu, Portugal.

Read, Herbert (1943). Education through art. London: Faber & Faber.

Rogoff , Irit (1998). Studying visual culture. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.), The visual culture reader

(pp. 14-26). London: Routledge.

Saar, Tomas (2005). Konstens metoder och skolans träningslogik [The methods of art and school’s

logic of training]. Karlstad University studies, 2005:28, Sw.

Schubert, William H. (1986). Curriculum: perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York:

Macmillian Publishing Company.

Schönau, Diederik W. (1996). Nationwide assessment of studio work in the visual arts: actual

practice and research in the Netherlands. In D. Boughton, E. W. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds.),

Evaluating and assessing the visual arts in education: international perspectives (pp. 156-175).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Sharp, Caroline (1998). The eff ects of teaching and learning in the arts: A review of research.

London: QCA/NFER.

Shulman, Lee (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Research, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, Lee (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Skolverket (2000). Grundskolan: kursplaner och betygskriterier [The compulsory school: curricula

and rubrics]. Stockholm.

Slåtten, Kåre (1998). Fagrelatert didaktisk kunnskap: perspektiver på begrepet “pedagogical

content knowledge” [Subject-related didactic knowledge: perspectives on the concept of

“pedagogical content knowledge”]. Nordisk Pedagogik, Vol. 18, pp. 163-173.

SOU (1999:63). Att lära och leda. En lärarutbildning för samverkan och utveckling [To learn

and to guide. A teacher’s education for co-operation and development]. Lärarutbildnings-

kommiténs slutbetänkande. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

Sparrman, Anna (2006). Barns visuella kulturer – skolplanscher och idolbilder [Children’s visual

cultures –educational posters and star portraits]. Lund, Sw.: Studentlitteratur.

Stankiewisz, Mary Ann (2003). Between technology and literacy. International Journal of Art &

Design Education (JADE), 22(3), 316-324.



Steers, John (1996). Evaluation in the visual arts: a cross-cultural perspective. In D. Boughton,

E. W. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds.), Evaluating and assessing the visual arts in education:

international perspectives (pp. 176-193). New York: Teachers College Press.

Säljö, Roger (2000). Lärande i praktiken [Learning in practice]. Stockholm: Prisma.

Thavenius (2004). Den modesta estetiken [The modest aestetics]. In L. Aulin-Gråhamn, M.

Persson & J. Thavenius (Eds.), Skolan och den radikala estetiken (pp. 65-95). Lund, Sw.:

Studentlitteratur.

Thavenius, Jan (2002). Estetik och skola. Några synpunkter på forskningsläget [Aestetics and

school. Some views on the state of aff airs of research]. In L. Aulin-Gråhamn (Ed.), Kultur,

estetik och skola. Några forskningsperspektiv (Rapporter om utbildning, 2002:9, pp. 43-66):

Malmö Högskola, Sw., Lärarutbildningen.

Thomson, Pat (Ed.). (2007). Doing visual research with children and young people. London:

Routledge.

Winner, Ellen (1982). Invented worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Winner, Ellen & Cooper, Monica (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link

between arts study and academic achievement. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3-4), 11-75.

Åsén, Gunnar (2006). Varför bild i skolan? En historisk tillbakablick på argument för ett

marginaliserat skolämne [Why visual arts in school? A historical review on arguments for a

marginalised subject matter in school]. In U. P Lundgren (Ed.), Uttryck, intryck, avtryck: läran-

de, estetiska uttrycksformer och forskning (2006:4, pp. 107-122). Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

Änggård, Eva (2005). Bildskapande – en del av förskolebarns kamratkulturer [Making pictures – a

part of preschool children’s peer cultures]. Linköping University, Sw., Linköping Studies in

Arts and Science, 315. (Diss.)



FROM PSYCHOLOGY TO SEMIOTICS

Swedish Studies and Curricula until 1994

Lars Lindström

IntroductionMore than other subjects, art education in Sweden has experienced far-reaching changes and con fl icts. The discourse has gone through a series of pa ra digm shifts. Things that once were regarded as the core of the subject have been relegated to the edge of it or have been erased completely. More than once, patterns of thought, aims, subject matter, and meth ods have been radically transformed. This is true not only of educational philosophies but of ap proa ches to art educational research as well. Never theless, a spirit of continuity, with frag ments of diff erent and often confl icting tradi tions existing side by side, seems to have characterized the teaching of art in most class-rooms.

Here I will focus on art education in the primary school, grades 1 through 6 (students 7–13 years of age), and the lower se con dary school, grades 7 through 9 (students 13–16 years of age). I will relate art educational studies to educational philosophies, curricula, and practice of art education in Swe-dish schools.5 Since my focus is on the interaction be tween theory and prac-tice, the outline is organized as a chronological analysis of the de velopment of art edu cation interspersed with sections on research and other studies.

Historical studies of art educationBefore starting my presentation of educational paradigm shifts, however, I should men tion a few studies available for anyone who has acquired an interest in the history of art educa tion in Sweden. For example, in 1980 Stig Eklund at Umeå University pub lished a book let with a great deal of quota tions from offi cial documents (Eklund, 1980). And in their doc toral thesis on art educa-tion, Sten Pettersson and Gun nar Åsén wrote an extensive chapter on the develop ment of the subject in Sweden, analysing the literature from the mid-19th century until the 1980 school curriculum (Pettersson & Åsén,

5 The study of Swedish art education until 1994 is presented at greater length in Arts Education Policy Review, May 1997.


1989, Ch. 3, pp. 68-124). Ulla Lind, Kersti Hasselberg and Britt-Marie Kühl-horn (1992) edited a publication on art education for the 150th anniversary of the Swedish school, and Gert Z Nordström (1994) wrote a chapter on visual arts teacher education, in a magnifi cent volume celebrating the 150th anniversary of the University College of Arts, Crafts and Design in Stockholm (Konstfack). A brief curriculum study in English focused on the drama-tic shift towards a communicational understanding of images (Lövgren & Karlsson, 1998). Marie Bendroth Karlsson (1998) revised her dissertation into a popular textbook on Swedish art education, with an initiated section on its historical background.

In 1988, Anna Lena Lindberg at the Department of Art His tory, Lund University, pre sented a dissertation on museum education called Konst-pedagogikens dilemma – histo riska rötter och moderna strategier [The Dilemma of Art Education: His torical Roots and Modern Strategies]. Lindberg (1988) suggests that there exists a dilemma be tween the lecturing at titude, aimed at enlightening and helping the receiver to enter into possession of his cultur al heri tage, and the charismatic attitude, linked to an ideology which in ro man tic fashion claims that the experience of art is a matter of feeling, not thinking or learn ing. She analyses the manifestations of this dilemma from the mid-19th century until the present time, where she looks for a synthesis.

In the same year, Ulla Frost defended her dissertation Förlagor och Teck-ningsläror [Teach ing Methods in Elementary Drawing] at the Department of Art History, Stockholm University. Frost (1988) studied the teaching of drawing in Sweden during the nineteenth centu ry, based mainly on the collections of source materials gathered by the art teachers John Ekström and Olle Strandman. Her scope includes the traditional method of copying print ed originals (depicting the human body, ornaments and picturesque motifs) as well as the newer me thods, like Adolf Stuhlmann’s “stigmografi ” which promoted discipline, a necessary condition for managing the large classes in the public educational system.

Art integrated with social studiesThe fi rst important shift in Swedish art education took place already in 1911. Then the semi nar lecturer Axel Goës abandoned the stultifying drill with lines, dots and squares that had been developed by Adolf Stuhlmann in Germany (Hansson, 1992). The Stuhlmann method was in tro duced in Sweden during the 1870s and became an immediate success nationwide. As late as in the 1930s, this method was still practiced in some places. Its eff ect on early art educa tion cannot be explain ed by its artistic merits. Rather, it met the needs of the artis tically untrain ed teach er who was in charge of big classes and lacked adequate materials.



Goës used drawing as a way of perceiving, refl ecting upon, and restruc turing a subject area. In 1916 he started, together with a writing colleague, Gott-fried Sjöholm, to produce a series of illustrated textbooks for a new subject in the primary school – Hem bygds kun skap [Ger. Hei mat kunde; Eng. approx. Social Studies] – that in te grated local his tory, geography and folk lore. The curric ulum demanded that students should be invol ved in practical exerci-ses. Among these, Sjö holm and Goës said, draw ing was “the kind of exercise that never can be dis pens ed with”. The last edition of one of their popular books was published in 1960.

The method introduced by Sjöholm and Goës was modelled after the brief sketch that step by step is developed into more details and sharper contours. Students were en cour aged to reproduce the essential form of an object in simple geometrical shapes. Some times a sketch was drawn on the blackboard, explained by the teacher and then erased. On other occa sions an object was shown for a short interval. The student then drew it from memo ry. Later on, the object was brought forward again and was compared with the drawing. Large dis crepan cies were rectifi ed. During this process, the typical form was identifi ed and unne ces sary details were sorted out.

Sjöholm and Goës not only developed the visual imagination of children at a time when pictures of local phenomena were not as readily available as they are to day. Goës also developed a set of graphic conventions that made it possible for stu dents and teachers to make their own representations of diff erent phenomena. In this he was inspired by early modernistic artists, although he went from abstraction to nature rath er than the other way around as the modernists did (Hansson, 1992, pp. 29-30). For several decades, Swedish pri mary school teachers in the Sjöholm/Goës tradition engaged in a discussion about the role of pictorial representations and drawing across the curriculum.

Art as free creative expressionAfter World War II, the discussion of curriculum issues in Drawing was taken over by art teachers seeking an iden tity as a new professional group within the emerg ing com pre hensive school. These art spe cia l ists soon became in-fl uenced by a type of psycho logy and educational philosophy that tended to set up the terms “self” and “culture” as opposites. According to Peter Abbs (2003)

… nearly all the necessary resources were seen to reside in the natural self, not in the col-

lective culture and not in the specifi c art form the teacher was claiming to teach. One

released; one did not initiate, nor transmit (p. 51).



In Education through art, published in 1943, Herbert Read presents his radi-cal vision of the role of art in school and modern society. He insists that our instincts and vital energy should be educated instead of suppressed. “Destructiveness,” Read (1943, pp. 201 f.) warns, “is the out come of unlived life.” The role of parents and teach ers should be to help in hibited and anxious child ren to become more open and secure, and “education should have no other aim than to preserve within us some trace of the penetration and de-light of the innocent eye. (Read, 1945, p. 111)”

Inspired by this philosophy, the young Swedish art teacher Jan Thomaeus declared that “the best art teachers are the laziest, since they don’t cause any harm.” In a fi rst mani festo, writ ten with Gösta Kriland in 1945, Thomaeus is outraged, among other things, by a booklet on how to draw “Pigs,” to be fol-lowed by a series of booklets depicting “Cats,” “Dogs,” “Rabbits” and “Horses”. These booklets are not a joke, Kriland and Thomaeus (1945) complain:

Unfortunately, they are meant to be taken in dead earnest . . . There is no end of those

oval pigs and cir cular chickens that prospective art teachers have to draw on the black-

board as a norm for students. . . . When this system is introduced as the one and only

way, creating ‘or der’ for the anxious little nitpicker and bureaucrat in a chaotic world, . .

. this will neces sarily result in narrow-mindedness and impoverishment. This dogmatic

judgement: that is what a pig looks like, that is what a chicken looks like, then a leaf, etc.

simply means that we put blinkers on the child and thus stifl e her own fresh enjoyment

in discovering the world (p. 12).

Any system will end up in a blind alley if it is looked upon as “the one and only way”. However, Thomaeus goes on to criticize every approach to dra-wing where the idea, the initiative and the design do not emanate from the child herself. Not surprisingly, drawing as a method of refl ecting upon local history, geography and folk lore lost its appeal as “free creative activity” emerged as the new paradigm in art education.

Drawing a pig, not to mention a “real pig”, was no longer considered a mean ingful problem. If a student, nevertheless, was occu pied with prob lems like this, she came under suspicion of being an “anxious little nitpicker.” Accord ing to a survey in the 1970s students who were not convinced of the benefi ts of “free creative expression,” and therefore ran the risk of being labelled as rigid, usually came from a blue-collar family background (Pettersson & Åsén, 1989, pp. 19 ff ., 256 ff .).

In the late 1950s the new paradigm was the established way of thinking about art edu cation. In the 1962 Compulsory School Curriculum (Lgr 62), the concept of “free crea tive activity” is heavily emphasized. According to



the Lgr 62, students “should primarily be allowed to create freely without any connection to the rest of the curricu l um (p. 312).” They should become acquainted with a variety of materials and techniques, with some especial ly preferred ones such as tempera instead of water colour, charcoal and soft pastels instead off pencils.

The legacy of child psychologyIt is diffi cult to understand the transformation of art education in Sweden from represen tation to free creative expression without relating it to the growing prestige of psycho logy (Åsén, 1982). Since children were increa-singly conceived as unique with a personality of their own, teachers were encouraged to observe the psychological development of each child and to off er materials that would fi t his or her needs. In order to serve these needs, a great variety of materials was prescribed. But teachers also had to acquire some basic knowledge of psy chology.

In a Swedish offi cial report on art education, published in 1956, the com-mittee estab lished that knowledge in the psychology of art was still on a pre-scientifi c level (SOU 1956: 13). Many issues remained to be settled, e.g. What are the roles of emotion and cognition in the aesthetic experience? What is the relationship between students’ understanding of art and their studio work? The committee advocated a “carefully designed research pro-gramme” involving art teach ers in the role of setting up experiments and supplying empirical data. As a result of the re port, the psychology of art was introduced as a separate subject in the educa tion of art teach ers. It was fi rst taught by Marita Lindgren-Fridell, who held a licentiate (and later doctoral) degree in art history.6

The time was not ripe for starting a research programme, however. In 1971, Anders Almgren at the De part ment of Art History, Uppsala University, published the fi rst Swed ish doctoral thesis in art education: Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Flucht achsen perspektive [The Inverted Perspective and the Vanishing-Axis Perspec tive]. Already in the fi rst sentence, Almgren (1971) lets the reader know that he is an art teacher. He goes on to de scribe the parallels that he has found between his students’ representation of space and that of me die val artists. The purpose of his scholarly work is to identify and investigate relation ships between spatial representation in children’s draw ings and the way in which artworks from diff erent historical epochs and diff erent parts of the world represent space.

6 Lindgren-Fridell was for 25 years the curator of Konst i Skolan [Art in the School], which organized travelling art exhibitions; see Lindgren-Fridell, 1984.



In the same year, Gunnar Berefelt, professor of Art History at Stockholm University, edited a slim volume on Barn och bild [Child and Picture] that intro duced students to some aspects of children’s artistic growth (Berefelt, 1971). After the establishment of the Centrum för Barn kultur forskning [The Centre for the Study of Child Culture] in 1980, with Gun nar Bere felt as its director, a series of volumes on children’s drawing, art for children etc. was pub lished. Among these works, there are a few promising studies by Anna Heideken, who unfor tunately died prematurely. Anders Linder (2007), a psychologist who lectured at the Centre, recently published a document on children’s use of graphic symbols.

In 1978, Sylvia Lindström published a book, with Berefelt as a co-author, called Livets träd – världen sedd genom bar nets öga [The Tree of Life: The World Seen through the Eye of the Child] with pictures made by children from all over the world. “Wherever the child lived,” Lindström, Berefelt and Wik-Thorsell (1978) wrote, “the tree told us about the personality of the child, its so cial en vi ron ment, thoughts and dreams, hopes and fears of the future for the world (p. 14).” One year later, Anna-Lisa Kälvesten and Maj Ödman published a similar book that put more emphasis on cultural diff e-rences, called Barn i 5 länder tecknar och tänker [Children in Five Countries Draw and Think; Kälvesten & Ödman, 1979].

Karin Aronsson, professor of Child Studies at Linköping University, and her doc toral student Sven Andersson enriched this tra dition of cross-cul-tural studies with an innovative method for analysing children’s drawings, in their paper “Social Scaling in Children’s Drawings of Classroom Life” (Aronsson & Andersson, 1996). Andersson (1994) employed this method in his dissertation Social Scaling and Children’s Graphic Strategies: A Comparative Study of Child ren’s Drawings in Three Cultures, where he further elaborated on a socio cul tural view of children’s drawings. The term social scaling refers to size rela tions, and to other features of draw ings used to suggest relative importance, including exclusion or inclusion of specifi c elements (Aronsson & Junge, 2000).

Marie Bendroth Karls son, another student in Aronsson’s group, defended a dis sertation called Bild projekt i förskola och skola – estetisk verksamhet och pedagogiska dilemman [Visual arts projects in preschool and school: Aesthetical activity and educa tional dilemmas]. Bendroth Karlsson’s (1996) data mainly consist of videotaped sequences of verbal and non-verbal discourse during art activities. She observed that art activities often are used as means for reaching non-artistic goals, such as diagnosis, entertainment, concept for ma-tion, etc. She admits the emanicipatory potential of “free crea tive activity”



but, re fer ring to Barbara Rogoff (1994), she concludes that giving students a great deal of freedom has to be com bined with the guidance necessary to create a “community of lear ners.”

Art as visual communicationAlthough “free creative activity” was a dominant ideological trend in the 1950s and the early 1960s in Sweden, it never obtained the hegemony that it has had in many other countries un til quite recently. In the mid-1960s, there was a disappointment from some former iconoclasts as well as a massive, more antagonistic critique from a group of young students at the Na tional College of Arts, Crafts and Design in Stockholm (Konstfack), where at the time all se condary school art teachers received their basic training.

One of the most articulate critics was Christer Romilson, a future lead-er of Scandina via’s largest teacher union. In the late 1960s, he belonged to the movement of students that was awakened politically by the Vietnam War and went on to critici ze power elites in the uni ver sity as well as in the society at large. Romilson (1971) argued that the defi nition of freedom be-hind the phra se “free creativity” was a nega tive one: the absence of compul sion. This kind of attitude can never lead to real freedom. Romilson made a com-parison with the language arts. Admittedly, the stu dent who does not study a foreign lan guage has a kind of freedom, but the person who speaks several for eign languages has a lot more freedom.

Romilson also questioned the attitude that any fi xed teaching would be an encroachment upon the students’ integrity. If the teacher’s role is reduced to a caretaker for ma te rials, the only consequence will be that other infl uences take over the steering of the stu dents. Students will be left at the mercy of the enormous commercial propaganda machine – which works largely with pictures. This fl ood of visual media moulds our students, Romilson said, and it provides them with templates for their activity, both in form and content. His conclusion is that . . .

it is only by analysing and studying the society in which we live, its construction and its

pur poses – and its pictures – that man can achieve the freedom that makes it possible

for him to work towards a consciously chosen purpose. It was this that the critics of free

creative activity considered to be the important function which the teacher of the visual

arts had to fi ll (Romilson, 1971, p. 5).

A young teacher at the department of art education, Gert Z Nordström, shared this view and criticized the nar row orientation towards art in teacher education (one year: still life, watercolour; one year: still life, gouache; two



years: nudes, oil paint). He ad vocated a broader orientation towards new subjects, such as picture analy sis, fi lm and TV, present-day cultural studies and so on. Like most students of art education and many art teachers, he wanted to broaden the subject of Drawing in schools to include the study of all forms of visual communication. However, both the board of the National College of Arts, Crafts and Design and the National Board of Education were opposed to these ideas. Only through a unique intervention by the Minister of Education at the time, Olof Palme, was Nordström elected by the government as the director of the art education department.

The 1969 and 1980 school curriculaAs a consequence of further actions by a new generation of art teacher trai-ners, the 1969 Compulsory School Curriculum (Lgr 69) was revised, al though the revisions primarily concerned Drawing in the secondary school. In the 1980 Compulsory School Curriculum (Lgr 80), not only the name of the subject was changed to Pictorial Studies (Sw. Bild), but the subject was com-ple tely redefi ned on all levels of schooling along the lines drawn up in the late 1960s. Vi sual communication is emphasized already in the fi rst sentences of the discription of aims:

Students shall develop their ability to create images independently, to com muni cate with

images and to critically analyse images of diff erent kinds. They shall under stand pictorial

re presentation as a langu age and be able to use visual language as an important means of

communication along with speaking, reading and writing (Lgr 80, p. 69).

The subject is divided into fi ve obligatory parts: Visual Production, Pic ture Analy sis, Visual Com mu nication, Aesthetic Orientation, and Image & Environment. Visual Produc tion should “provide space” for the students’ own imagery and make them familiar with the pro duc tion of photos, fi lm and video. The main purpose of Pic ture Analysis is to crit i cal ly exa mine those pictures students meet in their everyday life. Visual Communication should teach students how to use pictures for diff erent purposes, such as to convey in formation and news, persuade and advertise, entertain and ridicule. Aesthetic Orien ta tion is the only part of the curriculum where “art” is mentioned and then only as one of a variety of alternatives to se cond-rate commercial pictur es. In Image & Environment conceptual analysis of the infl u ence of mass media is given prime importance over the visual exploration of the local environ ment.



Picture analysis in focusIn a survey of articles in the professional journal Teckning [Drawing] 1960–68, Kolbjörn Waern (1972) found that articles about children’s drawings was a dominant topic in the begin ning of the period but almost disappeared from 1965 when, incidentally, Gert Z Nord ström became a member of the edito-rial staff . Instead, educational approaches and aims became major issues.

In their controversial book from 1970 called Bilden, skolan och samhället [Picture, school and society], Nordström and Romilson summarized the arguments in support of the new paradigm in art education. Emphasis was laid upon the contents of a new subject for pictorial studies as well as on the method of polarisation that was off ered as a pro gressive alternative to both“free” and authoritarian methods of teaching. According to this method of organizing projects, the production of pictures should be preceded by a system atic analysis of related pictures representing diff erent ways of living, acting, think ing, and so on. The implications of this method for teacher education were illustrated a few years later in an even more provocative book by Nord ström (1975) entitled Kreativitet och med vetenhet – den polariserande pedagogikens grunder [Creativity and Consciousness: Founda tions of Teaching by Polarisation].

Gradually, however, the focus of the writings by Nordström and his col-leagues shifted from the project method to semiotic picture analysis. In Bildanalys [Picture Analysis] from 1973, some noted art critics and students of visual culture (all with ties to Nordström’s Depart ment of art education) presented short essays on the topic (Aspelin et al., 1973). In Bild & Myt [Pic-ture and Myth] a few years later, Nordström presents a project in collabora-tion with three artists, using the methods of polarisation and picture ana-lysis in the preparatory stages of their artistic work (Nordström et al., 1976). In the late 1970s two books with critical essays on the modernist movement and its institutions were published by Torsten Bergmark, Peter Cornell, Sten Dunér, Gert Z Nordström and some other persons connected with the Depart ment of art education (Bergmark et al., 1977; Cornell et al., 1979).

In 1984, Nordström published Bildspråk och bildanalys [Pictorial Language and Picture Analysis], a textbook based on the developments at his department during the 1970s. Here semiotics is introduced and developed as a handy tool for analysing mass media:

Researchers who want to study contents and expression in the mass culture soon rea-

lize the limitation of traditional theory of art and will therefore search for other theo-

ries, which promise to supply them with better tools. General semiotics, which tries to

embrace all sorts of signs that can be produced and interpreted, will for obvious reasons

attract attention, especially since it proposes new approaches to various domains. One

wants to see what it is good for (p. 64).



From a scholarly viewpoint, Uppslagbok i bildanalys [Encyclopaedia of Pic-ture Analy sis] published in 1985 and edited by Peter Cornell et al., represents the high-water mark of the studies made by the teacher staff at the de-partment. In Bilden i det post moderna samhället [The Picture in Postmodern Society] 1989, Nordström applied his semiotic concepts to a compre hensive study of artworks, mass media and children’s pictures. A few years later he elaborated his view of children’s pictures in the bilingual book Barns bild-språk – Child ren’s Pictorial Language, written in collaboration with a few Nordic col leagues (Hansson et al., 1991).

In the project Rum Relation Retorik [Room Relation Rhetoric], published in 1996, Nordström is the mentor of a new generation of art educators with scholarly ambitions. The aim of the project is the same as that of most other projects at the Department of art education since Nordström became its director and (from 1989 to 1996) a professor; the aim is “to investigate the communica tive qualities of the picture, to draw attention to its grammar and to develop picture theory and picture analysis” (Nordström, 1996, p. 9).

The 1994 school curriculumThe revolt by the students of art education in the late 1960s was not an isolated event. All over the Western World, including Sweden, young people protested against established autho ri ties and ideologies that were con-sidered false or oppressive. Seldom, however, did these actions have such an immediate and far-reaching eff ect in school as in the case of art edu ca tion in Sweden. Although, for example, visual communica tion was debated in Germa ny at about the same time, that concept never caused such a radical change in the curricula for the comprehen sive school that the term para-digm shift would be adequate.

The support of radical changes cannot be explained by the Zeit geist alone or by the per sua sive power of individuals. The new paradigm also met the interest of art teach ers to in crease their professional status. By defi ning art as a counter balance to general educa tion, the old paradigm ascribed an ema-nicipatory role to the art teacher. In addition to off er ing another powerful rhetoric, the new paradigm expanded the territory of art educa tion.

It served to protect the art subject from reduc tions in the timetable, especially on the lower secondary level (Broady, 1986). Here there was a severe com pe ti tion with teachers of language arts about certain parts that either for merly belong ed to Drawing (picture analysis) or were new additions to the curriculum (fi lm, television and other media of visual communica tion). Studying of how media may eff ect consumers was a topic that might have



been taken over by home econo mics. The broad er orienta tion of the new subject, Pictorial Studies, may explain why art edu cation in the lower secon-dary school in Sweden has a stronger position on the timetable than in most other countries.

In the 1994 Compulsory School Curriculum (Lpo 94) the art world is paid slightly more attention than in Lgr 80, but the main focus is still on a wider concept of visual communication, including modern media (with computer graphics as a new addition) used for multiple pur poses. The negative tone in which commer cial pic tur es and the infl uence of media was formerly dis cussed has been changed. As a sign of continuity, the parallel between vi sual arts and language arts is even more elaborated than before. The fi ve ob ligatory parts (see above) have disappeared and been replaced by certain basic goals that every body shall be given the opportunity of achieving. For students in grade 9 the fol low ing goals are mandatory:

The student shall

- have developed her ability to produce pictures by means of diff erent techniques,

- be able to use her own pictures as well as those of others for diff erent purposes,

- be able to interpret, analyse, and critically examine diff erent types of pictures, including

moving ones, and

- have knowledge about the role of pictures in culture and society and be familiar with

some prom inent visual artists. (Lpo 94, p. 13)

These goals roughly correspond to what was formerly called Visual Produc-tion, Visual Com mu nication, Picture Analy sis, and Aesthetic Orientation. But they give, in their gen eral formu lations, more freedom to the teacher. The section that was called Image & Envir onment does not appear in this set of goals. On the other hand, in the Lpo 94, both envir onmental and media issues are re gar ded as cross-dis ciplinary by na ture.

Visual arts in national evaluationsIn analysing the discourse on Swedish art education, I have used the term para digm shifts, indicating that patterns of thought, aims, principal parts, and meth ods have been radi cally transformed from one time to the other. The evidence, however, is offi cial documents such as curricula for the compulsory school, i.e. the primary and lower-sec ondary levels of schooling. The reader is justifi ed in asking to what extent these do cu ments aff ected practice. That is, what happened when the new ideas were con fron ted by teachers, stu-dents and working conditions in ordinary schools?



Two national evaluations of Swedish schools, which took place in 1989 and 1992, will help us answer this question. Both included Pictorial Studies, with the fi rst evaluation examin ing grades 2 and 5 (Eklund, 1990; Holmberg, 1990), and the second one focusing on grade 9 (Bild 1993), i.e. the fi nal grade in the com pulsory school. On each grade level about 200 teachers and 3,000 students partici pated. In addition, data from a questionnaire answered by 180 teachers on all three grade levels in the late 1970s were analysed in a doctoral thesis by Sten Pettersson and Gunnar Åsén (1989). The the sis also in-cludes in-depth observational data from eight classes instructed in visual arts.

These documents give a fairly consistent picture of Swedish art education in practice at the time. It is obvious that the latest paradigm shift, suggested in Lgr 69 and completed in Lgr 80, had not radically transformed the daily activities of most teachers of art. This con clusion is especially true concer-ning primary school teachers, who primarily looked upon art activities as an opportunity for students to relax and use their imagination. These are the concepts usu ally associated with visual production as a “free creative activity” rather than as a communica tive activity with cognitive components. Activities related to the art world (e.g. visits to art museums or galleries) ranked low among these teach ers, while photography, fi lm, and video production ended up at the bottom of their priority list.

To most primary school teachers, progress in visual production seemed to mean no more than the acquisi tion of skills in how to use diff erent materials and techniques. Often a new task was given each week. Except for co lour, primary teachers seemed to lack the terminology need ed to analyse formal and ex pres sive qualities of pictures. Not surprisingly, then, there was no signi fi cant student improvement in these dimensions between grades 2 and 5. Al though art activi ties were commonly co-ordinated with social studies, the evaluating team would not call this integration. Of course, stu dents applied materials and techniques that they master, but there was no clear indication that new insights were added into the formal, expres sive or commu-nicative aspects of visual production (such insights were, in fact, introduced by Sjö holm and Goës, although in a limited and schematic way; see Hansson, 1992).

Art teachers in the lower secondary school had gone through a three-year teacher train ing programme at an institution for higher education in arts, crafts, and design. In general, they had qualifi ed for the programme by attending an art college for one year. This should, of course, infl uence their attitudes to art education compared to a primary teacher, who usu ally had only fi ve to fi fteen weeks of training in art education. Consequently, students in the secondary school often worked with an art project for more than one week. They also be came familiar with more varied materials and



techniques, such as graphic arts, ceram ics, photography, and video produc-tion. However, drawing, painting, and collage were still the dominant activi-ties while visual production by means of technical equipment was not very common in the non-elective school programme.

Those art teachers who took part in the 1992 national evaluation estimated that three fourths of their teaching time was used for the production of pictures. The evaluating team of ex perts criticized the fact that only one fourth of the teaching time was left to help stu dents analyse and interpret pictures and give them an orientation about art and visual aspects of their environment. With that small amount of time for looking at pictures and talk ing about them, they argued, students will not achieve the visual lite-racy demanded in the national cur riculum. Nor are they likely to “fi nd an interest in” and “come to appre ciate” the values inherent in art, as the curri-culum prescribed they should.

In a few evaluation tasks, for example, teachers and students were asked to share their opinions about certain modern artworks, both fi gurative and non-fi gurative. Teachers rated these works in highly positive terms. Stu-dents in the lower secondary school, how ever, had a rather low opinion of them, tending to rate them as “dull”, “disgusting”, and “making no sense”. This tendency was most pronounced as regards the non-fi gurative artwork, suggesting that the students shared some common stereotypes about what art is about and what it should look like. These attitudes bring the art histo-rian Sven Sandström’s (1982) contention up-to-date that Swedish schools by neglecting the world of art contributed to render it invis ible.

In summary, teachers in the lower secondary school were infl uenced by the new para digm manifested in the Lgr 80, but there was still much to be done in order to fi nd a proper bal ance between theoretical and practical aspects of the subject. I do not think, however, that this point of ba lance can be expressed in a certain percentage. The principal question is rather how diff erent perspectives (in the Swedish Lpo 94 operationalized as four basic goals to be achieved) can be brought to interact in a fruitful way.

References

Abbs, Peter (2003). Against the fl ow. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Almgren, Anders (1971). Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Fluchtachsenperspektive [The inverted

perspective and the vanishing-axis perspective]. Uppsala University, Sw., Uppsala Studies in

the History of Art, Nova Series, No. 8, 1971.



Andersson, Sven (1994). Social scaling and children’s graphic strategies: a comparative study of

children’s drawings in three cultures. Linköping University, Sw., Linköping Studies in Arts and

Science, No. 118. (Diss.)

Aronsson, Karin & Andersson, Sven (1996). Social scaling in children’s drawings of classroom

life. A cultural comparative analysis of children’s drawings in Africa and Sweden. British

Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 301-314.

Aronsson, Karin & Junge, Barbara (2000). Intellectual realism and social scaling in Ethiopian

children’s drawings. In L. Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context: comparative studies of art

education and children’s drawings (Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 135-139).

Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag).

Aspelin, Gert et al., (1973). Bildanalys [Picture analysis]. Stockholm: Gidlunds.

Bendroth Karlsson, Marie (1996). Bildprojekt i förskola och skola – estetisk verksamhet och peda-

gogiska dilemman [Visual arts projects in preschool and school: Aesthetical activity and

educational dilemmas]. Linköping University, Sw., Linköping Studies in Arts and Science,

No. 150, 1996.

Berefelt, Gunnar (Ed.). (1971). Barn och bild [Child and picture]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Bergmark, Torsten et al., (1977). Den åldrade modernismen [The aged modernism]. Stockholm:

Gidlunds.

Bild. Huvudrapport i den nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan, våren 1992 [Visual arts educa-

tion. Main report of the national evaluation of the compulsory school, spring 1992]. (1993).

Report No. 22, The National Agency of Education, Stockholm.

Broady, Donald (1986). Professionsintressen och förändrad teckningslärarutbildning [Interests

of the profession and a transformed education for teachers of drawing]. KRUT 41, 58-61.

Cornell, Peter et al., (1979). Innanför & utanför modernismen [Inside and outside the Modernism].

Stockholm: Gidlunds, 1979.

Cornell, Peter et al. (Eds.). (1985). Uppslagbok i bildanalys [Encyclopaedia of picture analysis].

Stockholm: Gidlunds.

Eklund, Stig (1980). Studier i teckningsundervisningens historia [Studies of the history of

teaching drawing]. Umeå University, Sw., Institutionen Lärarhögskolan, Teckningslärarlinjen,

Report No. 1, 1980.

Eklund, Stig (1990). Bedömning av kunskaper och färdigheter I bild, årskurs 2 [Assessment of

knowledge and skills in Pictorial Studies, grade 2]. Report No. 10, Department of Art Educa-

tion, University of Umeå.

Frost, Ulla (1988). Förlagor och Teckningsläror [Teaching methods in elementary drawing].

Stockholm University, Department of Art History.

Grundskolan – kursplaner, betygskriterier [The compulsory school: curricula and rubrics] (1996).

Stockholm: National Agency for Education.

Hansson, Hasse, Nordström, Gert Z, Pedersen, Kristian & Stafseng, Ola (1991). Barns bildspråk

– Children’s pictorial language [Bilingual]. Stockholm: Carlssons.



Hansson, Hasse (1992). När varje lärare kunde teckna [When every teacher could draw].

In U. Lind, K. Hasselberg & B.-M. Kühlhorn (Eds.), Tidsbilder (pp. 26-39). Stockholm:

Ut bildnings radion.

Holmberg, Lena (1990). Elevers kunskaper och färdigheter i bild och svenska i åk 5 [Pupils’ knowledge

and skills in Pictorial Studies and Swedish in grade 5]. Report D: No 2, Department of Teacher

Education, University College of Kalmar.

Kriland, Gösta & Thomaeus, Jan (1945). Teckningsundervisningen av i dag: kvasivetenskap eller

fritt skapande? [Drawing education of today: Quasi science or free creative activity?]. Vi, 38(12).

Kälvesten, Anna-Lisa & Ödman, Maj (1979). Barn i 5 länder tecknar och tänker [Children in fi ve

countries draw and think]. Stockholm: Liber.

Lindberg, Anna Lena (1988). Konstpedagogikens dilemma – historiska rötter och moderna strategier

[The dilemma of art education: Historical roots and modern strategies]. Lund University

Press, Sw., Lund Studies in Art History, No. 2, 1988.

Linder, Anders (2007). Concenterteckning – en projektiv metod [Concenter drawing – a projective

method]. Stockholm: Proprius.

Lindgren-Fridell, Marita (1984). Föreningen Konst i skolan: pionjärinsats i skolans konstbildning

1947–1976 [The association Art in school: pioneer work in art education 1947-1976].

Stockholm: Föreningen Konst i skolan.

Lindström, Sylvia, Berefelt, Gunnar & Wik-Thorsell, Anna Lena (1978). Livets träd – världen

sedd genom barnets öga [The tree of life: the world seen through the eye of the child].

Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.

Läroplan för grundskolan, Lgr 62 [Curriculum for the compulsory school system, Lgr 62.] (1962).

Stockholm: National Board of Education.

Läroplan för grundskolan, Lgr 80 [Curriculum for the compulsory school system, Lgr 80.] (1980).

Stockholm: Liber.

Lövgren, Staff an & Karlsson, Sten-Gösta (1998). From art making to visual communication.

In K. Freedman & F. Hernández (Eds.), Curriculum, culture and art education (pp. 91-106).

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Nordström, Gert Z & Romilson, Christer (1970). Bilden, skolan och samhället [Picture, school,

and society]. Stockholm: Bonniers.

Nordström, Gert Z (1975). Kreativitet och medvetenhet – den polariserande pedagogikens grunder

[Creativity and consciousness: foundations of the teaching by polarisation]. Stockholm:

Gidlunds.

Nordström Gert Z, Björk, Karl Olov, Eneroth, Björn & Karlewski, Hanns (1976). Bild & myt

– ett konstpedagogiskt projekt [Picture and myth – an art pedagogical project]. Stockholm:

Gidlunds.

Nordström, Gert Z (1984). Bildspråk och bildanalys [Pictorial language and picture analysis].

Stockholm: Prisma.

Nordström, Gert Z (1989). Bilden i det postmoderna samhället [The picture in postmodern

society]. Stockholm: Carlssons.



Nordström, Gert Z (1994). Bildlärarutbildningen [Teacher education in the visual arts]. In

G. Widengren (Ed.), Tanken och handen: Konstfack 150 år (pp. 352-379). Stockholm: Page

One Publishing.

Nordström, Gert Z (Ed.). (1996). Rum Relation Retorik [Room Relation Rhetoric]. Stockholm:

Carlssons.

Pettersson, Sten & Åsén, Gunnar (1989). Bildundervisningen i det pedagogiska rummet [Visual

arts education and the educational room]. Department of Educational Research, Stockholm

Institute of Education. (Diss)

Read, Herbert (1943). Education through art. London: Faber & Faber.

Read, Herbert (1945) Art and society. London: Faber & Faber.

Rogoff , Barbara (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind,

Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209-229.

Romilson, Christer (1971). A new teaching in the visual arts [special issue]. Teckning, No. 5.

Sandström, Sven (1982). Den osynliggjorda bildkonsten [Visual art made invisible]. Dagens

Nyheter, March 31st.

SOU [Swedish Offi cial Report Series] (1956:13). Konstbildning i Sverige [Arts formation in

Sweden].

Waern, Kolbjörn (1972) Vänstervridningen på Teckningslärarinstitutet [The leftist turn at the

Drawing teachers’ Institute]. Göteborg University, Sw., Department of History (Term paper).

Åsén, Gunnar (1982). Från avbildning till fritt skapande. En analys av psykologins infl ytande

på teckningsämnets utveckling [From depicting to free creative activities. An analysis of the

infl uence of psychology on the development of the subject matter of drawing]. Stockholm

Institute of Education, Department of Educational Research. (Working paper)



MEDIATED ACTION AND AESTHETIC LEARNING

Themes in Swedish studies 1995–2008

Lars Lindström

IntroductionContemporary education of visual arts teachers in Sweden can be characte-rized in terms of two trends: decentralisation and academisation. In the 1960s, when the shift from an art-based conception of the subject to visual com-munication took place, all art teachers were trained at the University Colle-ge of Arts, Crafts and Design in Stockholm (Konstfack) (Nordström 1994). In 1976 Umeå University in Northern Sweden began to train art teachers as well (Eklund, 2002). Since 1994, however, each institution of higher educa-tion can decide which courses they want to teach. As a consequence, today at least nine universities and university colleges off er curricula designed for training art teachers <lararutbildning.nu>. Since 1988, training in art edu-cation has to be combined with preparation for teaching another school subject as well. Therefore, a degree of bachelor of education in the visual arts (Sw. bildlärarexamen) no longer exists.

Only Konstfack includes work samples as a requirement for being accepted into the programme. At other schools for education, the artistic training of students before entering the programme varies a lot. The decentralisation of art teacher training has consequences for the identity formation of art teachers. As with music teachers (Alexandersson, 2007), teaching art tended to be a way of life rather than a profession. Art teachers accepted or even appreciated being defi ned as “outsiders” in the school community. The pre-sent generation, trained in pictorial studies combined with another school subject at institutes all over the country, increasingly look upon themselves as any other category of teachers (Marner, 2008).

As a result of more than half a century of reforms, teacher education has step by step been integrated into the university. The latest step in that direction was taken in 2007 when the Stockholm Institute of Education, preparing one fi fth of all teachers in the country for their profession, was closed down as an autonomous authority and absorbed by eight departments of educational sciences erected at Stockholm University. A Department of



Arts & Professions was created and moved to the Faculty of Science, in order not to be swallowed up by the giant Faculty of Social Sciences or sharing the meagre cake of the Faculty of Humanities. In April 2008 Arts & Professions (Sw. praktiska kunskapstraditioner) was accepted as an autonomous research discipline within Stockholm University, with the right to recruit, train and examine doctoral students.

Sceptics have criticised the tendency to regard research and academisa-tion as a panacea for improving teacher education. They argue that the implementation of research has, in fact, meant replacing of the faculty of practitioners with academics, and moving the focus of education from crea-tion and problem solving in the medium to picture analysis and textual pro-duction. They accuse the academics for having moved the students from the studio to the lecture hall and the seminar room, thus transforming visual arts education from a practical-aesthetic activity to an academic one.

Opponents to this scepticism argue that research, pluralism and academic degree projects exclude dogmatism and authoritarian attitudes and should vitalise the professional discource. Lee Cronbach (1975), known as a hard-nosed empiricist, once remarked that in a complex and changing world, the contributions of the social sciences are largely of an indirect nature:

Though enduring systematic theories about man in society are not likely to be achieved,

systematic inquiry can realistically hope to make two contributions. One reasonable

aspiration is to assess local events accurately, to improve short-run control. The other

reasonable aspiration is to develop explanatory concepts, concepts that will help people

to use their heads. (p. 126)

Nevertheless, the two aspects of academisation represent a factual dilemma (Borg, 2007). The crucial question, however, is not whether to reintroduce apprenticeship as a basis for teacher education or to continue striving for academic recognition; the challenge is rather to develop a modern, research-based apprenticeship and to elevate the position of experience-based knowing in teacher education.

Children’s drawings in a visual cultureUntil the mid-1960s, children’s drawings was one of the most popular themes in Swedish professional writing on art education. Then suddenly, this topic almost disappeared from the agenda, not to return until the 1990s. The focus of curricula, teacher training and research shifted to picture analysis, popular forms of visual communication, and to cultural studies.


In Denmark, “child art” was never abandoned as a topic of study. Instead, established accounts of children’s appropriation of a pictorial language were revised. Soon after, but independent of, the publication of Brent and Marjorie Wilson’s “Iconoclastic view of the imagery sources in the drawings of young people” (1977), the Danish art educators Rolf Köhler and Kristian Pedersen (1978) published a book where they criticized the famous Viktor Lowenfeld (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1969) for not taking into consideration the great impact of the visual culture in which children participate. Like the article by the Wilsons, their book created a huge stir among those who cherished the romantic view of the innocent child.

In the Nordic countries, Lowenfeld’s grand narrative of the emancipation of the child from artful scribbles, via a growing mastery of visual realism to the expressive qualities of early Modernism, is giving way to a variety of smaller, less comprehensive narratives. The copies sold of the Danish trans-lation (1st ed. 1971; 2nd ed. 1976) of Creative and mental growth in Scandinavia, declined from around 1,200 in 1984 to less than 300 in 1995/1996. Today, artistic development is rather described as the growth of a gradually more dif-ferentiated repertoire, with diff erent options co-existing and being available for diff erent purposes, rather than replacing each other in a hierarchical order.

Process and socio-cultural approaches laid the foundation for a revival of interest in children’s drawings in the 1990s (e.g. Hansson et al., 1991; Andersson, 1994; Lindström, 1995; Aronsson & Andersson 1996; Aronsson, 1997). For example, Karin Aronsson & Sven Andersson (1996; Andersson, 1994) asked African and Swedish children to make drawings of classroom life and of their future family. Their fi ndings supported the notion of “social scaling”; that is, social space in the drawings (relative size, distances, degree of detailing etc.) refl ected children’s hierarchies of importance.

Another mani festation of the child art revival is The cultural context (Lindström, 2000), presenting papers from a symposium held in Vilnius, Lithuania, which was organized by the Network of Nordic Researchers in Visual Arts Education. In this edited volume, Aronsson & Junge and Lindström, for example, presented cultural com parative studies of children’s drawings in non-European cultures, such as Ethiopia, Nepal, Mongolia and Cuba.

Marie Bendroth Karlsson (1996) studied visual arts projects in the Swedish preschool and school. She concluded that “art activities are often made subordinate to other goals and used as means for reaching non-artis-tic goals, such as diagnostics, decoration/entertainment, concept learning etc.” (p. 300). Elisabet Ahlner Malmström (1998) analysed communicative



qualities in children’s pictures. Ingrid Lindahl (2002) studied preschool children’s use of visual means in problem solving. Ulla Löfstedt (2001) com-pared pictorial learning in various preschool settings. Löfstedt (2004) also revised her short, widely used introduction to sociocultural approaches to children’s drawings. Eva Änggård (2005) studied picture making in the con-text of pre school children’s peer cultures. Paradoxically, it was found that “the methods [copying, using templates] that make pictures attractive in the children’s eyes make them less valuable in adults’ eyes”. Anna Klerfelt (2007), fi nally, investigated the verbal and gestured interaction between children, pedagogues and digital technology, when children created stories in words and pictures.

Professor Karin Aronsson in Linköping (from 2008 professor at Stockholm University) took an early interest in Nelson Goodman’s languages of art; she visited Howard Gardner and Harvard Project Zero already in the 1970s. Later on, she introduced quantitative techniques, such as “social scaling”, in her comparative work of children’s drawings. She also applied Mikhail Bakhtin’s concepts to the study of visual thinking, arguing that children’s drawings should be understood as narratives rather than representations of something that the child has seen or know of.

Eva Änggård (2005) and her generation of Swedish young researchers have brought the understanding of children’s graphic activity still one step further, by accepting that the formation of a specifi c peer group, whose members happen to make drawings, may be more important for the child than the representative or narrative qualities of his or her drawings by them selves. By interpreting children’s drawing as social practice (Pearson, 2001), these empirical studies off er still another lens for observing what is going on.

Reggio Emilia and the third pedagogueThe fi rst Swedish Reggio Emilia exhibition, shown at the Museum of Modern Art, Stockholm, 1981, made a deep impression on many visitors. Not only the setting but the children’s works in themselves emphasized the aesthetical dimension of learning. These Italian pedagogues were no romantics, trying to protect children’s free creative expression from the corrupting infl uences of society. On the opposite, they involved preschool children in con ceptual refi nement, based on acute observation of their physical and cultural sur-roundings. They argued against the notion of universal developmental stages (Åberg & Lenz Taguchi, 2005). In spite of their cognitive orientation, however, they never forgot the magic world of the child, which they approached in order to enrich the children’s emotional repertoire.



Not only the original philosopher and educator Lois Malaguzzi but also the atelierista Vea Vecchi and, indeed, the thirty-four day care centres in Reggio achieved status of legends of modern child education. The Diana child care centre became almost a place of pilgrimage for Swedish progressive educa-tors. Some of them looked for a complete system to implement at their own day care centres. One of the fi rst projects to be documented on video was about doves living at the squares of Reggio. On a visit to Sweden and our day care centres, Malaguzzi once noted the plethora of projects investigating the life of doves. “Do you have such a plenty of doves in your country?” he asked. Of course, we had not! The doves rather indicated a widespread but superfi cial appropriation of the Reggio approach. Later on, Professor Gunilla Dahl berg and her colleagues at the Reggio Emilia Institute in Stockholm have made a great eff ort to deepen the public understanding of the Reggio approach by interviews (e.g., Barsotti, 1997), case studies (e.g., Kennedy, 1999) and political-philosophical expositions (e.g., Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 2007).

Inspired by the importance attached in Reggio to the internal environment, called ”the third pedagogue”, Elisabeth Nordin-Hultman (2004) compared British and Swedish day care centres in this respect. She focused on how rooms and materials regulated the use of time and space. In Gothenburg, Tarja Häikiö (2007) presented an analysis of the role of the atelierista (art teacher) in the Reggio approach, based on comparative case studies of art education in three countries and on an elaboration of the Vygotskian theory of imagination.

A contrasting perspective on the arts in early childhood education is sug-gested by Professor Ingrid Pramling and her colleagues (2008), who advocate a ”developmental pedagogy” and teaching of art for art’s sake, i.e. for under-standing the manner in which the artist presents her subject matter.

Art in the compulsory schoolHans Wetterholm would probably never dream of exhibiting school children’s drawings and paintings at an art museum. In his doctoral work, Wetterholm (1999; 2001) makes a useful taxonomy of the 1994 national art curriculum for the compulsory school. He then assumes the role of mento-ring two teachers who are trying to implement the curriculum for the ear-lier school years. Both teachers found the curriculum feasible and whether they taught an integrated curriculum or not, they felt strongly that, with younger school children, art should be taught by the class teacher rather than an art specialist.



In a curriculum guide for art education in the compulsory school, Sten-Gösta Karlsson and Staff an Lövgren (2001) refer to Gottfried Sjöholm and Axel Goës among their sources of inspiration. They present a well-structured thematic approach that will make art education look pretty much like any other school subject, with objectives, assignments, home work, refl ection, interaction and assessment.

As far as curricula and syllabi are concerned, Swedish art education has always been concurrent with, and sometimes ahead of, its time compared to other school subjects, says Gunnar Åsén (1998). On the other hand, in spite of new curricula, classroom activities do not seem to have changed very much. Like the 1992 national evaluation (NU 92), the 2003 evaluation (NU 03; Marner, Örtegren & Segerholm, 2005) found that Visual Production dominated time in class over other aspects of the curriculum, such as Picture Analysis and Visual Communication (Table 1).

Table 1. Activities in art lessons according to teachers in the 9th school year (age 16). Source:

Marner et al. 2005.

Section 1992 2003

Visual Production 57% 60%

Picture Analysis 11% 12%

Visual Communication 13% 12%

Aesthetic Orientation 10% 10%

Image & Environment 9% 6%

Total 100% 100%

Among the art teachers in the NU 03, there were two major conceptions of art education. Approximately 45 % of the teachers defi ned visual arts (picto-rial studies) as an aesthetic-practical school subject, whereas almost the same percentage of the teachers put communication at the core of the curriculum. In both groups manual production was a more common classroom activity than production by means of modern visual media. The term aesthetic-practical was introduced in 1962 but was removed in the curriculum from 1980, where all subjects were arranged in alphabetical order. However, an ol-der conception of an art-and-craft based (aesthetic-practical) subject seems to have survived alongside with more recent ones, as a cultural lag. Marner et al. (2005) even found a minority who looked upon their subject as basically an outlet for free creative expression, hence representing a curricular concep-tion that was popular during the 1950s.



Assessment of creativityPortföljvärdering av elevers skapande i bild [Portfolio assessment of student creativity in the visual arts] is one of a handful in-depth studies of key com-petences highlighted in the 1994 national curriculum. A major aim of these studies was to try out new assessment methods. In the visual arts project, Lars Lindström, Leif Ulriksson and Catharina Elsner (1999) used seven criteria for assessing creativity. Product criteria: (1) the visibility of the intention behind the picture (the student communicates what he or she intended); (2) colour, form, and composition (the student can arouse the desired eff e§cts with the aid of visual elements and principles); (3) craftsmanship (the student masters materials and techniques).

Table 2. Median values on a 12-grade scale of criteria for creativity in the visual arts in the compulsory

school. Source: Lindström, 2006.

Visibility of intention

Colour, form, com-position

Crafts-manship

Investiga-tive work

Inventive-ness

Ability to use models

Capacity for self-assessment

Overall judge-ment

Grade 9 7 7 8 7 6 6 5 8

Grade 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 6

Grade 2 7 3 5 6 6 5 4.5 6

Process criteria: (4) investigative work (the student is persevering, does not give up in the face of diffi culties); (5) inventiveness (the student identifi es problems, tries new solutions); (6) the ability to use models (the student actively searches out models to emulate); (7) capacity for self-assessment (the student describes and refl ects on diff erent qualities in his or her work). In addition there was (8) a holistic judgement of the student performance.

All student portfolios were assessed both by the teacher who taught the class and by another teacher from another school. For each criterion the assessors had to choose between four levels, each with “plus” and “minus” (that is, a twelve-grade scale), described in a teacher’s manual. The interrater reliability was found to be high. Elaborate techniques were used to eliminate halo eff ects.

One main result was that students in the compulsory school seem to pro-duce more advanced pictures the longer they have been in school. They stag-nate, however, or show only minor progress with regard to process criteria measuring the ability to work independently, to assess their work and so on (Table 2), that is, such qualities which Lois Hetland, Ellen Winner et al. (2007) associate with “the real benefi ts of visual arts education”. Based on



the outcome of his study, Lars Lindström (2002b) discusses how school can nurture students’ creativity. A summary of the study and its implications, published in the International Journal of Art & Design Education (Lindström, 2006), received an international research award in the name of Brian Allison.

Sociology of aesthetic educationCulture, aesthetics and school are key concepts in a project co-ordinated by Lena Aulin-Gråhamn 1999–2003, with the support of Professor Jan Thavenius. In reports and books, such as Kultur och estetik i skolan [Culture and Aesthetics in School; Aulin-Gråhamn & Thavenius, 2003] and Skolan och den radikala estetiken [School and the Radical Aesthetics; Aulin-Gråhamn, Persson & Thavenius, 2004], the group members develop a sociological theory of aesthetic experience. They want to show how the way in which we think about and use the aesthetic is infl uenced by its institutional framework, such as the school, the art world or the market. For a long time, conceptions of art as being decorative and creative expression as being essentially spon-taneous came to dominate the way in which art education was thought of, at least in the earlier years of education. This conception the group calls “the modest aesthetics”, since its modest claims have probably contributed to the marginalisation of aesthetic elements and perspectives in school.

The most forceful power in the contemporary aesthetic fi eld is what Aulin-Gråhamn et al. (2003; 2004) call “the market aesthetics”, a corollary of Paul Duncum’s (2007) designer capitalism, “where the economy is no longer thought to be based on desire so much as on the drive to continually create evermore desire” (p. 286). It is a possible scenario that the school of tomor-row will open the gates for designer capitalism and its need for competence in design, media, visual culture etc. Accommodations like these, however, will not have large eff ects. Market aesthetics cannot be balanced by anything less than a transformation of how the school looks upon its mission. Here the late-modern Western artist can serve as a role model, the group claims.

Like the art world, the school can become a democratic community with freedom of speech, both as a human right and as an ability to communicate, Aulin-Gråhamn and Thavenius (2003) imagine. Their vision of the school as a classic participatory democracy, practising a democratic way of life, reminds us of John Dewey’s ideal, inspired by the early North American sett-lements and their institutions (Westbrook, 1991). By performing in the arts, the student and his or her thoughts become “visible” and “public”, they con-tend. But unlike Dewey (1911), who suggested that learning should imitate the experimental methods used in science, Aulin-Gråhamn and co-workers



are inspired by “the methods of art”. “The radical aesthetics” of art – or rather of contemporary Western art – is described in terms such as open, questioning and critical:

The strength of art is rather that curiosity and questions, contradictions and uncertainty

may persist. (…) A radical aesthetics should not exclude what is fraught with confl ict or

unpredictable. It should challenge conventions and routines by making familiar things

appear unfamiliar, shifting perspectives and turning things upside down. (Thavenius,

2004, p. 120)

Tomas Saar (2005), in an ethnographic study, uses a similar description of the potential power of art. He makes a distinction between a “strong” aest-hetics, which challenges us to look at things in new perspectives or notice their ambiguity, and a “weak” aesthetics, which is used to support, illustrate or embellish a given body of knowledge.

Aesthetic education as mediated actionIn En kulturskola för alla [A Culture School for All; Marner & Örtegren, 2003] and Möten & medieringar [Meetings & Mediations; Marner, 2005], Anders Marner, together with Hans Örtegren, analyse issues in the Swedish discourse on aesthetic education. They claim, like James Wertsch (1991), that human action typically employs “mediational means” such as tools and language, and that the mediation shapes the action in essential ways. Marner and Örtegren (2003) share the vision by Aulin-Gråhamn, Thavenius and others of the school as a seedbed for democracy. However, they criticise their colleagues for

… neglecting the medium-specifi c competence in favour of a medium-neutral perspective.

In the long run, this will impair eff orts to implement aesthetic projects, since students

and teachers who already master the particular medium, will be the only ones to take the

risk of entering into a medium-specifi c dialogue (s. 78).

Referring to Lev Vygotsky’s theory of creativity (Vygotskij, 1995), they reject the idea of a sovereign subject who freely expresses herself, relying on the impulse of the moment, independent of any medium-specifi c competence and with no concern about communicative genres. Such an idea of aesthetic expression, emanating from Romanticism, makes the mistake of looking upon the medium as being no more than a neutral surface. In the medium-specifi c perspective of Marner and Örtegren, the rhetoric about the child’s



“freedom of speech” by a pictorial language, becomes a pipe dream unless students are aff orded the guidance and time needed not only to master materials and techniques, but to transform them into media for personal expression.

Marner and Örtegren further elaborate their sociocultural and semiotic vocabulary by making a distinction between a vertical/hierarchic and a horizontal concept of mediation. Thus Marner (2005) criticizes a one-sided reception of Vygotsky as a pioneer of cognitive science, on a par with Jean Piaget. Followers of Vygotsky, such as A. N. Leont’ev and A. R. Luria, have often considered it a major aim of education to prepare the way for a development from everyday (spontaneous) concepts to scientifi c (syste-matic) concepts. This “vertical/hierarchic” perspective leaves no room for art, according to Marner. Referring to Viktor Sklovsky, he regards an im-portant function of art to be that of making the familiar seem strange, to “deautomatize” perception, to make us look upon the world with fresh eyes. By “defamiliarisation” (Ger. Entfremdung), art restores our sensibility. This makes it a necessary supplement to science, with its decontextualization of experience. By putting art on a par with science, Marner (2005) takes sides with a “horizontal” concept of mediation.

Aesthetic learning processesMany cultural, aesthetic and artistic programmes and projects in school during the last decade apply a horizontal concept of mediation. The initiatives have taken place under diff erent banners and with diff erent theoretical underpinnings: Loris Malaguzzi’s poem on the 100 languages of the child, Howard Gardner’s theory of the eight intelligences, Gunther Kress’ multimodal perspective on teaching and learning, etc. The Swedish Committee for Teacher Education (SOU 1999:63), for example, suggested that “aesthetic knowledge constitutes an important knowledge base for all teachers – irrespective of school subject or type of school” (p. 55). The Committee noted that knowing and aesthetic expression are often looked upon as opposite instead of supplementing aspects of learning. The mem-bers introduced the concept “aesthetic learning processes”(ibid.) to denote learning that integrates both aspects.

This concept had been used in Denmark, since the 1990s, by theorists such as Kirsten Drotner, Kristian Pedersen and Hansjörg Hohr. Looking upon aesthetic activities as specifi c modes of learning was regarded as a pa-radigm shift compared to traditional rationales for so-called free creative expression. In the Danish minor classic Perspektiver på æstetiske læreprocesser



[Perspectives on Aesthetic Learning Processes], Hohr and Pedersen (1996) say that we do not simply express our personal experiences; we mediate them by using, for example, a pictorial language. As a consequence, we learn and develop simultaneously our capability as human beings. A comprehen-sive education, accordingly, should include diff erent languages, e.g. the ver-bal, the musical, the embodied, the pictorial and the artifactual as well as the everyday, the poetic and the scientifi c. Pedersen (1998, p. 26) defi nes aesthetic learning as “knowing that comes out of mediating experience (…) through an active speech act, where the medium transforms what is percei-ved and construed through the form in which it is represented [Dan. gennem sine formsproglige fremstillingsformer] (…) Thus in the learning process the perception must be translated into sensuous forms of various kinds”.

In Sweden, the expression “aesthetic learning processes” was introduced as a rhetoric innovation rather than as a paradigm shift. For some teachers it referred to nothing more than what they already are, or should be, monito-ring. Claes Ericsson and Monica Lindgren (2007) identify at least seven fairly articulated uses of the concept. Aulin-Gråhamn and Thavenius (2003) prefer to talk about a set of aesthetic “perspectives” on learning. In a review of research on “learning through art”, Lindström (2002a) makes a distinction between learning about, in, with and through art. From an arts advocacy point of view, Marner (2006) cautions that an unspecifi ed, medium-neutral talk about aesthetics, can make decision makers neglect the medium-specifi c qualifi cations needed for integrating art, craft or music with academic subjects.

However, in aesthetic domains without a long tradition within sepa-rate subjects, such as drama (Austring & Sørensen, 2006), fi lm and ICT, teachers seem to be more inclined to initiate interdisciplinary projects and elective activities under the banner of aesthetic learning processes. Helena Danielsson’s (1998) licentiate thesis reports on fi lm making in the compul-sory school. She found that qualities of the process, such as group work and the use of language, were more important for these students than making a product. Fredrik Lindstrand’s (2006) doctoral thesis describes and analyses teenagers’ interaction and learning while making a fi lm. The study shows in great detail how they refl ect and make choices at diff erent stages of the fi lmmaking process. In her licentiate thesis, Lisa Öhman-Gullberg’s (2006) studies how students in grade 6 (12 years) of the compulsory school use fi lm to represent and communicate ideas in an interdisciplinary project on the EMU (European Monetary Union) referendum 2003. In her doctoral thesis, Laddade bilder [Ambiguous Images], Öhman-Gullberg (2008) studies repre-sentation and meaning-making in young girls’ fi lm-making. Here, as well as in her previous study, learners are portrayed as producers of knowledge through a process of selection, adaptation and transformation.



Phenomenography and transferIn the 1980s research into children’s conceptions of scientifi c phenomena and concepts burgeoned in the Western World, including Sweden. Almost half of more than 7,000 studies on science education, registered at a well-known data base in Kiel, Germany (Duit, 2006), deal with these kinds of issues. Apart from a seminal study on “how we understand art” by Michael Parsons (1987), and the work by David Perkins and Howard Gardner (1988) and other members of the Harvard Project Zero, very little of this interest has spurred research in art education. This may refl ect the world-wide tendency that “children learn to produce in art classes, but not to look at, refl ect on, or talk about art works” (Rosenblatt & Winner, 1988, p. 14). In Sweden, Catharina Elsner (2000) carried out a phenomenological study on “how arts teachers think”. Ann-Mari Edström (2006) presented a promi-sing research programme about learning art on the post-secondary level. In her doctoral thesis, Edström (2008) used pheno menographic interviews (Marton, 1981), and a longitudinal design, to identify those qualities that art students develop during their professonal training.

Two studies are inspired by Elliot Eisner’s (1998) famous paper about transfer, in which he found no good evidence of transfer between learning in the arts and academic achievement. In discussing his fi ndings, Eisner stresses the need for a theory that links experience in the arts with the acquisition of knowledge. Ylva Dahlman (2004; 2007) studied the impact of a course in graphic arts and design for science students. She drew on the work of several theorists to explain why the transformation of imagination into a concrete object might invite refl ection and the use of meta-cognitive skills. Pirjo Birgerstam (2000) studied how creative Swedish architects and visual artists tested and developed their ideas by sketching. Science educators today are exploring the role of visual thinking, for example by using familiar meta phors and analogies to assist the learning of scientifi c concepts. Peter Aubusson and co-workers (2006, p. 8) “believe that thinking without meta-phors and analogy is like a world without pictures or a colourless landscape”.

Moreover, Elliot Eisner (1998) suggested that the eff ects – if eff ects there are – of arts programmes on academic achievement may be due to the motivational eff ects of such programmes. Lars Lindström, Johan Arnegård and Leif Ulriksson (2003) used Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Experience Sampling Method to fi nd out whether students in classes specializing in music or sports enjoyed school more than other students. No such diff e-rence was found, however.



Frameworks for art education researchIn Sweden, there is no specialized programme for research education within the fi eld of visual arts education. Most students who want to prepare a doc-toral thesis within this area of research are directed to departments of edu-cation, art history, psychology or child studies. This leads to a multitude of perspectives and a healthy diversity of opinions (see Figure 2 above). But for students with a primary interest in teaching and learning, the theories off ered are often too decontextualized and thus too far away from the complex rea-lities in the classroom. In science education, domain specifi c theories have been suggested as a remedy for this predicament (Björn Andersson, 2006). There is a growing interest in pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) such as it is described in the opening chapter of this report. Educational theories or subject-matter knowledge studied separately do not guarantee an improved classroom practice. It is only when they are combined and adapted to specifi c contexts that they are likely to make a diff erence.

The University College of Arts, Crafts and Design in Stockholm (Konst-fack) off ers a four and a half year training programme for visual arts teachers at the upper secondary school. Having passed this programme, students can apply for another semester magister or a one year master programme. Like undergraduate students in the teacher training programme, most graduate students nowadays adopt a “double perspective”. That is, they use artistic as well as scientifi c tools for analysing and creating knowledge, and they pre-sent their degree project in the form of a written thesis combined with a work of art (multimedia/design). A magister course for art teachers was organized for the fi rst time in 1982; during the last decade, 82 students com-pleted the course by presenting either an academic paper (49 students) or an arts-based project (33 students). Now the teacher training staff are looking forwards to a Ph.D. programme, where their master students will be able to further develop their unique competencies.

In 2001, Professor Staff an Selander at the former Stockholm Institute of Education (now a part of Stockholm University) started a doctoral school (Sw. forskarskola) for the study of aesthetic learning processes. Eight doctoral students were recruited, one from each co-operating arts school (including technology and physical education) in the Stockholm metropolitan area. Today seven of these students have passed their doctoral exam. The student from Konstfack, Cecilia Andersson, presented in 2006 a thesis on street art. As a spin-off , the Konstfack began to arrange research courses on, for example, ethnography and visual culture.



The doctoral school had two “specifi c goals”: (a) to develop aesthetic learning processes as a fi eld of knowledge; (b) to support the development of re-search activities at those university colleges that participated. The doctoral school was evaluated by the Swedish Research Council, which was funding the agency. Students who were invited to join a group of other graduate stu-dents at their school of origin, were found to be the most successful ones. The outcome of the doctoral school would probably have become better, if the grant was channelled into such supportive environments. It was also recommended that if a new doctoral school was to be implemented, more eff orts should be made to develop “aesthetic learning processes” as a fi eld of knowledge. The diff erence between learning processes and artistic creative work in general was not made clear by the present doctoral school, as testi-fi ed both by the co-ordinator (Selander, personal communication, 2008) and the funding agency.

Aesthetic learning strategies – a synthesisAesthetic learning “processes” – or “strategies” as I would prefer to say, in order to acknowledge the intention of the subject – is a central topic in the recent Swedish discourse on visual arts education. First, it should be noted that there is no type of strategy that is to be preferred in every situation. Various terms have been introduced to describe dimensions of artistic lear-ning; some of them are connected to more or less sophisticated theories, others to patterns recognized in praxis; some are more ideological, others pragmatic; some approaches are more artistic, others more scientifi c and so on. The simplest way to characterize a phenomenon is to ascribe to it dicho-tomous attributes like these. Yet for practical and theoretical purposes such typologies are often too simplistic. I will here combine two dichotomous attributes, identifi ed in the literature, to a model with four cells (Table 3). The model will be used to sum up the previous exposition into four types of aesthetic learning strategies: learning about, in, with and through visual arts and media.

The fi rst attributes (columns) have to do with the goal, that is, what kind of learning that is intended by using aesthetic means. The strategy is conver-gent if the goal is to achieve something that is given in advance; it is divergent if the goal rather is to combine what you know to fi t new purposes. The fi rst kind of learning strategies refers to the mastery of the standard tricks of the trade; while the other one is associated with creativity. On an elementary level the following two tasks could be described as convergent: Learning how to mix colours; learning how to draw a linear perspective. Then the fol-



lowing tasks are divergent: Learning how a mood can be mediated through the choice of colours; learning various ways to create depth in a picture. On a more complex level, the convergent strategy shows similarities to Tomas Saar’s (2005) defi nition of a “weak aesthetics” as being retrospective in the sense of illustrating or animating what is already known, as opposed to a “strong aesthetics” which is prospective, looking forward towards that which is not yet completed.

Convergent Divergent

Medium-

specificLearning ABOUT

Art & Media

LearningIN

Art & Media

Medium-

neutralLearning

WITHArt & Media

LearningTHROUGH

Art & Media

Table 3. Aesthetic learning strategies

The second set of attributes (rows) is concerned with the means, that is, how aesthetic learning strategies are supposed to achieve various goals. In a medium-specifi c (aesthetic) strategy the form of the message is important. Communication is not medium-neutral, that is, the content of an utterance is infl uenced by how it is expressed and it will not be the same when trans-lated from a narrative into a fi lm, a drama or a cartoon. To articulate an idea, express a feeling or to achieve a visual eff ect, you must be attentive to the properties of the media and the tools at your disposition, know which to choose and how to avoid being controlled by them. In a medium-neutral (instrumental) strategy the top priority is not to initiate young people to the use of various “forms of representation” (Eisner, 1994) such as words, pictures, mathematics, dance and the like. Instead the major goal is related, for example, to knowledge in other school subjects (learning with) or to the psychological development of the child (learning through). This strategy is labelled “neutral” because the same goal can be achieved in diff erent media by a variety of tools.

Table 3 illustrates this pluralistic conception of what is meant by aesthetic learning. No combination of goals and means is a priori superior to other combinations. The categories should rather be looked upon as complemen-tary aspects of an aesthetic learning strategy. Learning WITH often refers to



the integration of art with subject matter from other disciplines (Cornett, 2003, Ch. 5), but it may also serve as a reminder of the fact that art works tend to have a content beyond themselves, some intentions with which they are expected to “fi t” (Goodman, 1978). Learning ABOUT refers to the basics of art education, from the elements and principles of design to knowledge about artists, styles and genres. Learning IN refers to experimenting with materials and techniques in order to achieve a visual eff ect, convey a mes-sage or express a mood. Learning THROUGH, fi nally, refers to the “studio habits of mind” (Hetland, Winner, et al., 2007) or thinking dispositions that we might acquire by involving ourselves in art projects.

Research methods and reported outcomesLike in many other fi elds of outcome research, there tends to be a para-doxal relationship between the quality of the research methods applied and the reported outcome of the intervention that is being studied. The less rigorous the design of an evaluative study, the more favourable results tend to be reported. This relationship is found especially in situations where a favourable outcome is a requirement for further funding.

The positive eff ects of investment in cultural capital, for example through visiting artists, are often taken for granted. A report by a team of researchers, co-ordinated by Mats Trondman (1996), described the prevailing attitude to cultural projects in school in the following terms: there exists something unproblematic good that cannot be questioned; that “goody” is the nice, that is, uncontroversial culture. And since culture is nice, it will result in something nice as well. But not only in nice “art works” but also in all sorts of nice things, such as enhanced self-esteem, improved peer relationships, and active leisure-time activities (Hansson & Sommansson, 1998, pp. 26-27).

Unfortunately, such transfer from one domain to another has been very diffi cult to verify. Ellen Winner and Monica Cooper (2000; Lindström, 2002a) identifi ed 1,135 studies that linked creative arts to academic achie-vement, that is success in English, Math, etc. After applying a set of strict inclusion criteria, they were left with 31 useable studies, from which they calculated 66 eff ect sizes. To be included, studies had to be either experi-mental or correlational, with a comparison or control group. Hence, pretest-posttest studies of a single group were not included. It was noted, however, that such studies produced eff ect sizes that were more than six times larger than those of well-designed studies. No experimental study, on the other hand, has so far been able to demonstrate that studying the arts leads to improved academic performance.



Winner’s and Cooper’s (2000) experience is not unique; it is likely to be repeated by anyone who consults the literature on visual arts education to get empirically grounded advice in policy matters. In 2004, The J. Paul Getty Trust, a long-time supporter of research in visual arts education, invited a team of experts – including the present author – to a symposium on prio-rities for future research. In the proceedings (Robinson, 2005), John Steers, General Secretary, National Society for Education in Art & Design (UK), exemplifi ed the state-of-the-art concerning research methods by describing a systematic review of empirical research, in the UK, entitled Evidence Based Practice and Policy Initiative, EPPI (http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms). The EPPI includes two reviews of research in the visual arts.

An initial trawl by Rachel Mason, John Steers, et al. (2005; Mason, 2008) through databases, journals, books, and bibliographies, identifi ed 2,945 papers on visual arts education written in English in the last twenty-fi ve ye-ars. When the exclusion/inclusion criteria were applied, the number of stu-dies being relevant for answering their research question was reduced to 243. After having looked beyond abstracts to the research itself, the reviewers ended up with 10 studies that appeared to draw on empirical evidence. The review raised serious questions about methodologies and about the ways in which data had been used and interpreted in studies of visual arts educa-tion. The fi ndings were consistent with the reviewers’ perception of “a fi eld preoccupied with visual rather than verbal modes of communication and favouring theorizing over empirical research” (Mason, 2008, p. 44).

Based mainly on Swedish experiences, Jan Thavenius (2002) concludes that the fi eld of aesthetic learning is characterized by a vigorous production of beliefs and hopes, rather than by the advancement of knowledge that is theoretically plausible and empirically well-founded:

It is my opinion that the fi eld [of aesthetic subjects and “culture in school”] is characterized

by a vigorous production of beliefs and hopes. Reference is more often made to what

is believed and hoped for than to knowledge that is theoretically or empirically based.

There is nothing wrong with beliefs and hopes. They are needed so that we can have

the energy to become involved. But we must also be prepared to confront our belief and

our hope with the critical scrutiny represented by, research. We must also be open to the

alternatives and hidden opportunities which, if all goes well, research can point out to us.

It therefore obstructs the development of the fi eld that both theoretical and empirical

research are in short supply. Another obstacle is that the research that does exist fi nds it

hard to reach out and be put into practice. (pp. 65-66)

In John Steers’ view, the EPPI review above (Mason, Steers et al., 2005) demonstrated “a depressive refl ection of the state of research in visual arts education” (Robinson, 2005, p. 34). The review suggested that much of



what passes as research is very propositional and speculative. Very little in-ternational research is grounded in empirical studies; very little research is collaborative. Much of it is the work of single, often fi rst-time, researchers and many do only one piece of research.

These trends are confi rmed by the bibliography of Swedish studies from 1995 onwards (Appendix 1), despite high-quality work by individual resear-ches and research teams. Some of the best samples are covered earlier in this chapter. Nevertheless, during the previous thirteen years, only six per-sons (Karin Aronsson, Lena Aulin-Gråhamn, Lars Lindström, Anders Mar-ner, Jan Thavenius, Hans Örtegren) or fi ve per cent of the listed authors, published more than fi ve titles in visual arts research. Eighty-six per cent of the authors presented no more than one or two titles, including research oriented articles and chapters in professional journals and books as well as contextualized reports of developmental work. Seventy-two per cent of the titles are the work of single authors. Ninety per cent of the listed titles are in Swedish.

Teaching and learning in the arts – a research agendaThe “depressive” condition of the fi eld is probably not the result of individual shortcomings but is more likely a consequence of an imperfect infrastruc-ture. Decisive for the “success stories” (> 5 titles) so far, have been (a) affi lia-tion with a university, (b) at least one research partner, (c) funding for a major project and (d) postdoc studies abroad.

At the Getty symposium on future research in visual arts education (Robinson, 2005), John Steers’ group made two specifi c recommendations to improve methodologies in research and the impact of research on edu-cational policy: (a) the establishment of a research institute to support the development of research methodologies in visual arts education and the arts in education more generally, including programmes of mentoring and quality assurance, and (b) the development of professional networks to debate and disseminate the research in visual arts education and their implications for national and regional policymaking.

However, nothing like this happened as a consequence of the Getty meeting (Steers, personal communication, 2008). But the scheme may nevertheless be feasible when transformed and implemented on a national and Nordic scale: (a) by the establishment of national doctoral schools for the study of education in the arts; these should be grounded in educational research methods and contribute to the development of domain-specifi c theories, and (b) by activating the Network of Nordic Researchers in Visual



Arts Education (Lindström, 1998, 2000), preferably as a Special Interest Group associated to the Nordic Network for Subject-Matter Didactics (Sw. Nätverket för ämnesdidaktik), which was established in 2002 (Schüllerqvist, 2003). A network of Nordic researchers in visual arts education should as a minimum have the following aims:

• To compare programmes for research education in the Nordic countries, to discuss general principles that are guiding such programmes and to implement necessary changes on a national level.

• To initiate co-operation between institutions that off er research educa-tion in visual arts education.

• To facilitate co-operation between researchers in visual arts education, for example by providing opportunities for research students to use re-searchers from universities and institutes of higher education other than their own as advisors or mentors.

• To develop channels for exchange of information on research in visual arts education.

In the USA, Elliot Eisner has insistently argued for the importance of the aesthetic dimension in education and human development. In The arts and the creation of mind, Eisner (2002) further develops his view of the signi-fi cance of aesthetic subjects and activities. He also comments upon what kinds of research questions are most urgent:

Among the most important kinds of research needed in the fi eld are studies of teaching

and learning (…) studies that try carefully to answer the question “What do teachers

of the arts do when they teach and what are its consequences?” (…) What kind of cur-

riculum activities do teachers ask students to engage in? (…) What kinds of comments

do they make to their students as they view their work? (…) What proportion of the

teacher’s discourse focuses on aesthetic matters, what proportion on technical matters,

and what proportion on matters of classroom management? (…) How much access do

students have to one another? (…) Questions such as these are important, for if we know

little about the processes teachers employ in classrooms, we will be in a poor position to

improve teaching. (pp. 215-216)

Charles Dorn (1999), in a book called Mind in art: cognitive foundations in art education, has a similar opinion of what kind of research is most needed:

We need to pursue at least two parallel research goals: one to provide the descriptive

research needed to understand the phenomena of art making and the other the applied

research required to adequately assess student progress in learning. (pp. 256-257)



The Swedish research review supports these priorities, at least as far as em-pirical studies are concerned. The studies of preschool children’s pictorial activities in situ, interpreted within the frameworks of Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Vygotsky, add new insights to the international literature. The same might be said about the portfolio assessment of children’s and young people’s creative skills, inspired by the work of Howard Gardner and Ellen Winner at the Harvard Project Zero.

A handful of empirical studies, although neither Nordic nor always published within the time frame of this survey, should be highlighted as ex-emplars of high standards and important implications for visual arts educa-tion: Jacob Getzels and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s (1976; Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels, 1989) experimental study of creativity and problem-fi nding in art; Michael Parson’s (1987) phenomenological study of how we understad art; Folkert Haanstra’s (1994) meta-analysis of eff ects of art education; Winner and Cooper’s (2000) meta-analysis of arts education and academic outcomes, and Hetland and Winner’s (2007, 2008) qualitative, ethnographic study of thinking dispositions fostered by art education.

Conclusions of the Swedish review• Contemporary education of visual arts teachers in Sweden can be cha-

racterized in terms of two trends: decentralisation and academisation. The present challenge is to develop a modern, research-based apprenticeship and to elevate the position of experience-based knowing in teacher edu-cation.

• Process and socio-cultural approaches laid the foundation for a new inte-rest in children’s drawings from the 1990s onwards. Inspired by Mikhail Bakhtin, Karin Aronsson argued that children’s drawings should be under-stood as narratives rather than representations of something that the child has seen or know of. By interpreting children’s drawing as social practice, Eva Änggård and others off ered still another lens for observing what is going on.

• Anders Marner and Hans Örtegren found that in spite of new visual arts curricula, Swedish classroom activities did not seem to have changed very much between 1992 and 2003. Approx. 45 % of the art teachers defi ned visual arts (pictorial studies) as an art-and-craft based, aesthetic-practical school subject, whereas almost the same percentage of the teachers put communication at the core of the curriculum. A minority looked upon their subject as basically an outlet for free creative expression.



• Students in the compulsory school seem to produce more advanced pic-tures the longer they have been in school. However, Lars Lindström, Leif Ulriksson and Catharina Elsner found that they stagnated or showed only minor progress with regard to process criteria measuring the ability to work independently, to assess their work, and so on, that is such qualities which visual arts psychologists Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner associate with “the real benefi ts of visual arts education”.

• Lena Aulin-Gråhamn and Jan Thavenius developed a sociological theory of aesthetic experience. They wanted to show how the way in which we think about and use the aesthetic is infl uenced by its institutional frame-work, such as the school, the art world or the market. They advocate a radical aesthetics, inspired by the art world, as an alternative to the modest aesthetics, prevailing in schools, and the market aesthetics, which dominate the aesthetic fi eld.

• Marner and Örtegren claim, like action theorist James Wertsch, that human action typically employs “mediational means” such as tools and language, and that the mediation shapes the action in essential ways. In their medium-specifi c perspective, the rhetoric of the child’s “freedom of speech” by a pictorial language becomes a pipe dream, unless students are aff orded the guidance and time needed not only to master materials and techniques, but to transform them into media for personal expression.

• The concept aesthetic learning processes was introduced in Denmark in the 1990s to emphasize, as Marner and Örtegren do, that we do not simply express our personal experiences; we mediate them by using, for example, a pictorial language. In Sweden, the concept has got various meanings. It is used especially in connection with interdisciplinary projects in aesthetic domains without a tradition as separate school subjects, such as drama, fi lm and ICT.

• Swedish students who want to prepare a doctoral thesis within the fi eld of visual arts education are directed to departments of education, art history, psychology or child studies. However, the theories off ered by these disci-plines are often too far away from the complex realities in the classroom. To improve teaching, art educator Elliot Eisner claims, the most urgent kind of research is that which focuses on the processes teachers employ in the classroom.



• In evaluating a doctoral school in aesthetic learning, it was recommended that a new school of this kind should use more eff orts at developing “aesthetic learning processes” as a fi eld of knowledge. Based on the present review of the literature, I combined two dichotomous attributes into four types of aesthetic learning strategies: learning about, in, with and through visual arts and media. These categories are designed for describing complementary aspects of an aesthetic learning strategy.

• In visual arts research, like in many other fi elds of outcome research, there tends to be a paradoxal reverse relationship between the quality of the research methods and the reported success of the intervention that is being studied. Based mainly on Swedish experiences, observers like Mats Trondman and Jan Thavenius concluded that the fi eld of aesthetic lear-ning is characterized by a vigorous production of beliefs and hopes, rather than by the advancement of knowledge that is theoretically plausible and empirically well-founded.

• During the previous thirteen years, only six persons or fi ve per cent of the Swedish authors listed in Appendix 1, published more than fi ve titles in visual arts research, including popular accounts of research. Eighty-six per cent of the authors presented no more than one or two titles. Seventy-two per cent of the titles are the work of single authors. Ninety per cent of the listed titles are in Swedish.

• Two recommendations are submitted: (a) the establishment of national doctoral schools for the study of education in the arts; these should be grounded in educational research methods and contribute to the develop-ment of domain-specifi c theories; (b) activating of the Network of Nordic Researchers in Visual Arts Education, preferably as a Special Interest Group associated with the Nordic Network for Subject-Matter Didactics (Sw. Nätverket för ämnesdidaktik).

References

Ahlner Malmström, Elisabet (1998). En analys av sexåringars bildspråk [An analysis of the six

year child’s pictorial language]. Lund University, Sw., (Lund studies in education). (Diss.)

Alexandersson, Mikael (2007). Släpp taget om traditionerna [Let go of the traditions]. (Intervju

utförd av Katarina Josephsson). Fotnoten, No. 2.

Andersson, Björn (2006). Innehållsorienterade teorier och design av undervisning – en ny

möjlighet till kunskapsbygge i lärarutbildningen [Content oriented theories and educational

design – A new possibility of building knowledge in teacher’s education]. In S. Ongstad

(Ed.), Fag og didaktikk i lærerutdanning (pp. 206-223). Oslo, Norw.: Universitetsforlaget.



Andersson, Cecilia (2006). Rådjur och raketer. Gatukonst som estetisk produktion och kreativ praktik

i det off entliga rummet [Roe deer and rockets: Street art as creative practice and aesthetic

production in the public space]. Stockholm Institute of Education (HLS Förlag). (Studies in

Educational Sciences, 94) (Diss.)

Andersson, Sven (1994). Social scaling and children’s graphic strategies. Linköping University, Sw.

(Linköping studies in arts and science) (Diss.)


life. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 301-314.

Aronsson, Karin (1997). Barns världar – barns bilder [Children’s worlds – Children’s pictures].

Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Aubusson, Peter J., Harrison, Allan G. & Ritchie, Stephen M. (Eds.). (2006). Metaphor and analogy

in Science education. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena & Thavenius, Jan (2003). Kultur och estetik i skolan [Culture and aesthetics

in school]. Malmö University College, Sw. (Rapporter om utbildning, 9/2003: Slutredovisning

av Kultur och skola–uppdraget 2000–2003)

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena, Persson, Magnus & Thavenius, Jan (2004). Skolan och den radikala

estetiken [School and the radical aesthetics]. Lund, Sw.: Studentlitteratur.

Austring, Bennyé D. & Sørensen, Merete (2006). Æstetik og læring. Grundbog om æstetiske lære-

processe. [Aesthetics and learning. Foundations of aesthetic learning processes]. Copenhagen,

Den.: Reitzel.

Barsotti, Anna (1997). D – som Robin Hoods pilbåge [D – as in Robin Hood’s bow]. Stockholm

Institute of Education (HLS Förlag).

Bendroth Karlsson, Marie (1996). Bildprojekt i förskola och skola [Visual arts projects in preschool

and school]. Linköping University, Sw. (Linköping studies in arts and science) (Diss.)

Birgerstam, Pirjo (2000). Skapande handling – om idéernas födelse [Creative actions – About the

birth of ideas]. Lund, Sw.: Studentlitteratur.

Borg, Kajsa (2007). Akademisering – en väg till ökad professionalism i läraryrket? [Turning

academic – A way to increase professionalism in the teacher profession?]. Pedagogisk Forskning

i Sverige, 12(3), 211-225.

Cornett, Claudia E. (2003). Creating meaning through literature and the arts, 2nd Ed. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Cronbach, Lee J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientifi c psychology. American Psychologist,

30, 116-127.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly & Getzels, Jacob B. (1989). Creativity and problem fi nding in art.

In F. H. Farley & R. W. Neperud (Eds.), The Foundations of Aesthetics (pp. 91-116). New York:

Praeger, 1989.

Dahlberg, Gunilla, Moss, Peter & Pence, Alan R. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood

education and care: Languages of evaluation. London: Routledge.

Dahlman, Ylva (2004). Kunskap genom bilder [Knowledge through pictures]. Uppsala: Swedish

University of Agricultural Sciences. (Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae) (Diss.)



Dahlman, Ylva (2007). Towards a theory that links experience in the arts with the acquisition

of knowledge. Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(3), 274-284.

Danielsson, Helena (1998). Video som språk & kommunikation [Video as language & communica-

tion]. Stockholm University, Department of Education. (Licentiate thesis)

Dewey, John (1911). How we think. Boston: Mass.: Heath.

Dorn, Charles M. (1999). Mind in art: cognitive foundations in art education. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duit, R. (2006). Students’ alternative frameworks and science education: a bibliography. Kiel, Ger.:

Institut für Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN).

Duncum, Paul (2007). Aesthetics, popular visual culture, and designer capitalism. Journal of Art

and Design Education, 26(3), 285-295.

Edström, Ann-Mari (2006). Att forska om lärande i konst [Researching on learning art].

Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 11(3), 195-213.

Edström, Ann-Mari (2008). Learning in visual art practice. Lund University, Department of

Education. (Diss.)

Eisner, Elliot W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. 2nd Ed. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Eisner, Elliot W. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Art Educa-

tion, 51(1), 7-15.

Eisner, Elliot W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eklund, Stig (2002). Från teckning till pedagogiskt arbete i bild [From Drawing to pedagogical

praxis in Visual arts education]. Monographs on Journal of research in teacher education,

Umeå University.

Elsner, Catharina (2000). Så tänker lärare i estetiska ämnen [How teachers in the arts think].

Stockholm Institute of Education (HLS Förlag). (Häften för didaktiska studier, 70/71)

Ericsson, Claes & Lindgren, Monica (2007). En start för tänket, en bit på väg. Analys av ett

utvecklings projekt kring kultur och estetik i skolan [Starting to think, slightly on the way. Analysis

of a project about culture and aesthetics in school]. Karlstad, Sw.: Region Värmland.

Getzels, Jacob B. & Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1976). The Creative Vision. New York: Wiley.

Goodman, Nelson (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett.

Haanstra, Folkert (1994). Eff ects of art education on visual-spatial ability and aesthetic perception:

two meta-analyses. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

Hansson, Hasse etal. (1991). Barns bildspråk – Children’s pictorial language. Stockholm: Carlssons.

Hansson, Hasse & Sommansson, Agneta (1998). Kulturens asplöv [The leaf of culture].

Stockholm: Arbetsgruppen Kultur i skolan, Swedish Ministry of Cultural Aff airs.

Hetland, Lois & Winner, Ellen (2008). Studio thinking: a fi rst step toward a study of transfer

from the visual arts. In V. Lindberg & K. Borg (Eds.), Kunskapande, kommunikation och bedöm-

ning i gestaltande utbildning (pp. 47-57). Stockholms universitets förlag.



Hetland, Lois, Winner, Ellen, Veenema, Shirley &, Sheridan, Kimberly M. (2007). Studio thinking:

The real benefi ts of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hohr, Hansjörg & Pedersen, Kristian (1996). Perspektiver på æstetiske læreprocesser [Perspectives

on aesthetic learning processes]. Copenhagen, Den.: Dansklærerforeningen.

Häikiö, Tarja (2007). Barns estetiska läroprocesser. Atelierista i förskola och skola [Children’s

aesthetic learning processes. The atilierista in preschool and school]. Göteborg University,

Sw. (Gothenburg Studies in Art and Architecture, 24)

Karlsson, Sten-Gösta & Lövgren, Staff an (2001). Bilder i skolan [Pictures in school]. Lund, Sw.:

Studentlitteratur.

Kennedy, Birgitta (1999). Glasfåglar i molnen [Glass-birds in the clouds]. Stockholm Institute of

Education (HLS Förlag).

Klerfelt, Anna (2007). Barns multimediala berättande [Children’s digital storytelling]. Göteborg

University, Sw. (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 256) (Diss.)

Köhler, Rolf & Pedersen, Kristian (1978). Børns billedproduktion i en billedkultur [Children’s

picture making in a visual culture]. Bredsten, Den.: Ulrika.

Lindahl, Ingrid (2002). Att lära i mötet mellan estetik och rationalitet [Learning when aesthetics

and rationality meet]. Malmö University College, Sw. (Studia Psychologica et Paedagogica,

163) (Diss.)

Lindstrand, Fredrik (2006). Att göra skillnad [Making diff erence]. Stockholm Institute of

Education (HLS Förlag). (Studies in Educational Sciences, 86) (Diss.)

Lindström, Lars (1995). Budskap i barns bilder [Messages in children’s pictures]. Bild i skolan,

No. 2, pp. 35-43.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (1998). Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review.

Stockholm Institute of Education (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, 2)

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (2000). The cultural context. Stockholm Institute of Education Press

(HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, 7).

Lindström, Lars (2002a). Att lära genom konsten. En forskningsöversikt [Learning through

art: a research review]. In M. Hjort et al. (Eds.), KILSKRIFT. Om konstarter och matematik i

lärandet (pp. 107-131). Stockholm: Carlssons.

Lindström, Lars (2002b). Produkt- och processvärdering i skapande verksamhet [Product and

process assessment in creative activities]. In The National Agency for Education, Att bedöma

eller döma (pp. 109-124). Stockholm: The National Agency for Education/Liber.

Lindström, Lars (2006). Creativity: What is it? Can you assess it? Can it be taught? The Interna-

tional Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(1), 53-66.

Lindström, Lars, Arnegård, Johan & Ulriksson, Leif (2003). Tonåringars upplevelse och pres-

tation i skolan – en fråga om klassbakgrund? [Teenagers’ experience and performance in

school – A matter of social background?] In A. Persson (Ed.), Skolkulturer (pp. 71-100). Lund,

Sw.: Studentlitteratur.

Lindström, Lars, Ulriksson, Leif & Elsner, Catarina (1999). Portföljvärdering av elevers

skapande i bild [Portfolio assessment of students’ creativity in the visual arts]. Stockholm:

The National Agency for Education/Liber Distribution. (Skolverket US 98) – An English

edition, under the title Assessing Creativity, is forthcoming.



Lowenfeld, Viktor & Brittain, W. Lambert (1969). Creative and mental growth, 4th ed. New York:

Macmillan.

Löfstedt, Ulla (2001). Förskolan som lärandekontext för barns bildskapande [Preschool as a

learning context for children’s pictorial activity]. Göteborg University, Sw. (Göteborg studies

in educational sciences) (Diss.)

Löfstedt, Ulla (2004). Barns bildskapande [Children’s pictorial activity]. Jönköping University Press.


och sociokulturellt perspektiv. [Meetings & mediations – Aesthetic subject matter and learning

processes in a semiotic and sociocultural perspective]. Umeå University, Sw. (Monographs

on Journal of Research in Teacher Education)

Marner, Anders (2006). Estetiska läroprocesser och/eller estetiska ämnen? [Aesthetic learning

processes and/or aesthetic subject matter?] Bild i skolan, No. 4, pp. 6-8.

Marner, Anders (2008). Kluven identitet i bildlärarkåren [Split identity among visual arts

teachers]. (intervju utförd av Annika Claesdotter). Bild i skolan, No. 1, pp. 6-9.

Marner, Anders & Örtegren, Hans (2003). En kulturskola för alla – estetiska ämnen och läroprocesser

i ett mediespecifi kt och medieneutralt perspektiv [A culture school for all – Aestetic subject

matter and learning processes in a medium specifi c and medium neutral perspective].

Stockholm: Myndigheten för Skolutveckling. (Forskning i fokus, 16)


grundskolan 2003 (NU-03). Ämnesrapport i Bild [National evaluation of the compulsory

school in 2003. The report of visual arts]. Umeå University, Sw., Institutionen för estetiska

ämnen.

Marton, Ference (1981). Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us.

Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.

Mason, Rachel (2008). Systematic reviewing: lessons for art and design education research. In

R. Hickman (Ed.), Research in art & design education: issues and exemplars (pp. 35-49). Bristol,

UK: Intellect.

Mason, Rachel, Steers, John, Bedford, Dorothy &, McCabe, Cynthia (2005). The eff ect of formal

assessment on secondary school Art and Design education: a systematic description of empirical

studies. The EPPI-Centre at the Social Science Research Unit, Institute of education,

University of London.

Nordin-Hultman, Elisabeth (2004). Pedagogiska miljöer och barns subjektskapande [Educational

settings and children’s forming of self]. Stockholm: Liber. (Diss.)

Nordström, Gert Z (1994). Bildlärarutbildning [Teacher education in the visual arts]. In G.

Widengren (Ed.), Tanken och handen: Konstfack 150 år (pp. 352-379). Stockholm: Page One

Publishing.

Parsons, Michael J. (1987). How we understand art: a cognitive developmental account of aesthetic

experience. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Pearson, Phil (2001). Towards a theory of children’s drawing as social practice. Studies in Art

Education, 42(4), 348-365.



Pedersen, Kristian (1998). Det æstetiske og formsproglige i lære- og billedprocesser [Form and

aesthetics in learning processes with pictures]. In M. Brandt-Pedersen (Ed.), Mediernes æste-

tiske udfordring. Copenhagen: Denmark School of Education. (Udviklingsprogrammer)

Perkins, David N. & Gardner, Howard (Eds.). (1988). Art, mind, and education [special issue]. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1).

Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, Asplund Carlsson, Maj, Olsson, Bengt, Pramling, Niklas &

Wallerstedt, Cecilia (2008). Konsten att lära barn estetik. En utvecklingspedagogisk studie

av barns kunnande inom musik, poesi och dans [The art of teaching children aesthetics: a

developmental-pedagogical study of children’s knowing within music, poetry, and dance].

Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska.

Robinson, Sir Ken (2005). Future research in visual arts education. Summary of a symposium,

December 5-7, 2004, The Getty Center, Los Angeles. Education Policy Department, The

Getty Foundation.

Rosenblatt, Elizabeth & Winner, Ellen (1988). The art of children’s drawing. In D. N. Perkins

& H. Gardner (Eds.), Art, mind, and education [special issue]. Journal of Aesthetic Education,

22(1), 3-15.

Saar, Tomas (2005). Konstens metoder och skolans träningslogik [The methods of art and school’s

logic of training]. Karlstad University, Sw. (Karlstad University Studies 2005:28)

Schüllerqvist, Bengt (2003). Nätverket för Ämnesdidaktik [The Network for Subject-Matter

Didactics]. In G. Fransson, Å. Morberg, R. Nilsson &, B. Schüllerqvist (Eds.), Didaktikens

mångfald (pp. 319-321). Gävle University College, Sw., Lärarutbildningens skriftserie, No. 1.

SOU (Swedish Government Offi cial Reports] 1999:63. Att lära och leda. En lärarutbildning för

samverkan och utveckling [To learn and to guide. A teacher’s education for cooperation and

development].


school. Some views on the state of the art of research]. In L. Aulin-Gråhamn, L. Gustaf

Andersson & J, Thavenius (Eds.), Kultur, estetik och skola (pp. 43-66). Malmö University

College, Sw., Lärarutbildningen. (Rapporter om utbildning, 9:2002)

Thavenius, Jan (2004). Den radikala estetiken [The radical aestetics]. In L. Aulin-Gråhamn,

M. Persson & J. Thavenius (Eds.), Skolan och den radikala estetiken (pp. 97-124). Lund, Sw.:

Studentlitteratur.

Trondman, Mats (1996). Kultur i skolan 1986 – 1991: analys och problematiseringar [Culture

in schools 1986 – 1991: analysis and problem fi nding]. Centrum för kulturforskning, Växjö

University, Sw.

Vygotskij, Lev V. (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet i barndomen [Imagination and creativity in child-

hood]. Göteborg, Sw.: Daidalos.

Wertsch, James V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Westbrook, Robert B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.



Wetterholm, Hans (1999). En bildpedagogisk studie, 1, Lärare undervisar [A study of Art education,

1, Teachers teach]. Malmö, Sw.: Lärarhögskolan. (Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem, 657)

Wetterholm, Hans (2001). En bildpedagogisk studie. Lärare undervisar och elever gör bilder [A

study of Art education: Teachers teach and students make pictures]. Malmö University College,

Sw. (Studia Psychologica et Pædagogica)

Wilson, Brent & Wilson, Marjorie (1977). An iconoclastic view of the imagery sources in the

drawings of young people. Art Education, 30(1), 5-11.

Winner, Ellen & Cooper, Monica (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal like be-

tween arts study and academic achievement. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3-4), 11-75.

Åberg, Ann & Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi (2005). Lyssnandets pedagogik [The pedagogy of listening].

Stockholm: Liber.

Åsén, Gunnar (1998). Ett ämne före sin tid: teckning [A school subject ahead of its time:

drawing]. In E. Børre Johnsen, et al. (Eds.), Kunskapens texter. Jakten på den goda läroboken.

Oslo, Norw.: Universitetsforlaget.

Änggård, Eva (2005). Bildskapande – en del av förskolebarns kamratkulturer [Making pictures: a

part of preschool children’s peer cultures]. Linköping University, Sw. (Linköping studies in

arts and science, 315) (Diss.)

Öhman-Gullberg, Lisa (2006). Movere – att sätta kunskap i rörelse [Movere – to get knowledge

on the move]. Malmö University College, Sw., Lärarutbildningen. (Licentiate thesis)

Öhman-Gullberg, Lisa (2008). Laddade bilder: representation och meningsskapande i unga

tjejers fi lm berättelser [Ambiguous images: representation and meaning-making in young girls’

fi lm-making]. Stockholm University, Institutionen för didaktik och pedagogiskt arbete.



BETWEEN VISUAL ARTS AND VISUAL CULTURE

Themes in Danish Studies 1995–2008

Helene Illeris

IntroductionSince the beginning of the new millennium the Danish educational sys-tem has been undergoing a series of important reforms with consequences for all levels of study from preschool to doctoral programmes. The political goal of these reforms is to make the system more effi cient and competi-tive compared to international standards, both in terms of expenses and in terms of the “production” of a qualifi ed workforce for the globalised labour market. Assessments through national tests and a meticulous description of the aims, goals and content of each school subject have been introduced in a neo-liberal showdown with traditional child-centred and project-oriented Danish educational values.

In this situation the visual arts, conceived as a separate discipline of edu-cation and educational research, is experiencing increased marginalisation. In upper secondary school Visual Arts lost its status as a compulsory subject in August 2006, in teacher training the specialisation in Visual Arts Educa-tion is under pressure due to a new reform, which has been implemented in 2007, and at the university the M.A. and Ph.D. programmes in Visual Arts Education were closed in 2002. In line with other “small” subjects such as Music, German, French, Biology and Handicrafts, the subject of visual arts has been cut back, while the political interest and goodwill is concentrated on “core subjects” such as Danish, Mathematics, English and Science.

Fortunately, in spite of the political situation, Danish art teachers and re-searchers have managed to develop quite strong platforms, from which their professional interests can be maintained, a fact which is proved by the long list of publications in this volume. The more than 80 M.A.’s and the fi ve Ph.D.’s that were awarded in Visual Arts Education before the programme was closed down play a key role in the introduction of new and experimen-tal theoretical and practical approaches. In particular the development and



introduction of the transdisciplinary educational approach of visual cul-ture seems to encourage continuous and fervid debates among researchers, teacher trainers and teachers in the visual arts.

Visual arts education in the Danish educational systemThe general structure of the Danish educational system diff ers from the other Nordic countries, and from most countries in the world, because the training of school teachers for the compulsory school is separated from uni-versities, and placed in eight “Professional University Colleges” (Professions-højskoler). This construction, which is intimately related to the Danish tra-dition of a decentralised educational system, forms one of the four separate Danish subsystems of education: the compulsory school system, the upper secondary school system, the system of professional university colleges, and the university system.

Compulsory school in Denmark is constituted by the nine years of the public municipal school (Folkeskole). The Folkeskole is a comprehensive school in the sense that it includes both primary and lower secondary edu-cation in forms 1 to 9. Most Danish children attend compulsory school from the age of six, when they enter the voluntary preschool year, to the age of fi fteen. In the Folkeskole visual arts is a compulsory subject from forms 1 to 5 and in most schools it reappears as an optional subject in forms 8 and 9. The subject is separated from the handicrafts of needlework and woodwork (Sløjd), which are normally taught in form 6. Visually oriented sub-disciplines, such as picture analysis and the understanding of fi lm and media are mostly taught in the subject of Danish, especially in the higher forms.

In Denmark upper secondary education covers three years of study and it is divided into general and vocational programmes. Until the latest reform, visual arts was considered a natural part of the Bildung (formation) which general upper secondary educational programmes are expected to provide. From 2006 visual arts has lost much of its status by becoming an optional subject. Furthermore, no Danish upper secondary educational programmes are specialised in visual arts or handicrafts while several general upper se-condary schools off er specialisations in music. The lack of compulsory art lessons after form 5 in the Folkeskole therefore has the consequence that a considerable number of Danish young people do not receive any specifi c visual arts education after the age of 11.

While art teachers in upper secondary schools generally hold a university M.A. in art history or art theory, visual arts teachers in the Folkeskole hold a practice-oriented “professional B.A.” (professionsbachelor) in education


from a Professional University College. The four years of training include specialisations in two to three main subjects, with visual arts as a “small” specialisation, which covers about one semester. The B.A. gives access both to work in the compulsory school at all levels and to attend M.A. studies at the university. The teacher trainers in the Professional University Colleges generally hold a university degree in education with a special orientation within a single school subject, e.g. visual arts. Some hold a university degree in another discipline, e.g. art history. Few teacher trainers hold a Ph.D. and, at least until the Professional University Colleges were formed in the beginning of 2008, teacher training institutions have had limited research qualifi cations or obligations.

In Denmark large parts of educational research are concentrated within one faculty: The Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus (DPU), which was established in January 2008. DPU off ers postgraduate two-year Master of Arts programmes in education (M.A. (Ed)) and Ph.D. programmes. Until the last revision of this article in August 2008, the faculty’s program-mes of study have been identical to those of its autonomous predecessor, the Danish University of Education, established in 2000 when the former Royal Danish School of Educational Studies (Danmarks Lærerhøjskole) and three smaller educational research institutes were closed. While the old School of Educational Studies off ered an M.A. programme in visual arts educa-tion at the Department for Aesthetic Education and Media Studies, DPU operated with a structure based on general approaches to education in six departments: Educational Psychology, Educational Sociology, Philosophy of Education, Educational Anthropology, Curriculum Research and Learning Lab Denmark7. Faced with this structure, the three researchers specialised in visual arts education chose to work within the Department of Educa-tional Anthropology. In 2002 a new research unit called Visual Culture in Education was established and a new direction was set towards visual arts education based on the concept of visual culture.

Danish research in visual arts educationIn Denmark visual arts education was formally established as an institutio-nalised fi eld of research in 1976 when Kristian Pedersen was the fi rst to be appointed Associate Professor in “Creative Arts” (Formning) at the Royal Danish School of Educational Studies. During the 1980s Pedersen worked together with his colleagues Rolf Köhler, Ingelise Flensborg, Birgitte Holm

7 By 1 August 2008 these six departments have been restructured into three larger departments: Department of Learning, Department of Didactics and Department of Education. The research unit Visual Culture in Education has chosen to be placed in the Department of Curriculum Research.



Sørensen, Bodil Havskov Jensen and Niels Adelsten to build a comprehensive theory of visual arts education based on a critical-constructive perspective. The aim was to lay a solid foundation for curriculum development and inno-vation of the school subject that could challenge the child-centred pedagogy, based on Lowenfeld’s developmental approach, which dominated Danish teacher training.

In 1991 the critical-constructive approach was consolidated. In the new national curriculum the name of the school subject was changed from Form-ning (“Creative Arts” – literally “formation”) to Billedkunst (Visual Arts) and the new guidelines largely mirrored Pedersen and his colleagues’ concep-tions. Furthermore, in 1989 the fi rst M.A. students in art education were enrolled, and in 1986, 1994 and 1995 one licentiate thesis and three Ph.D. theses were defended by researchers affi liated with the department. With a full-time staff of two associate professors and a lecturer, a quite strong and diff erentiated environment developed around research interests such as curriculum studies, children’s pictorial production and cognition in relation to perception and representation. Furthermore, an independent section for media education was established with a staff of two associate professors.

The developments of Danish research in visual arts education of the fol-lowing 10 years up to today can be characterised both in terms of continuity and in terms of rupture. In terms of continuity, both the critical and the constructivist approaches to research have been maintained and further developed by the new generation of researchers who entered the fi eld in the second part of the nineties. Helene Illeris and Mie Buhl both use critical and constructivist approaches in their meticulous redescriptions of the fi eld of art education in schools and teacher education in their doctoral work. But while the critical theory of the Frankfurter School had been the central approach of most of their colleagues, Illeris and Buhl use epistemological analysis inspired by French poststructuralism and German systems theory, and thereby signal a clear rupture with the remains of modernist and es-sentialist assumptions in Danish visual arts education. Conceptions of art education as naturally good and based on students’ presumed inner needs of personal expression are left behind in favour of approaches based in social constructivist concepts such as “positioning”, “strategy” and “choice”.

The new millennium has inaugurated a period of massive changes in Danish visual arts research. The closing of the School of Educational Stu-dies in 2000 and Kristian Pedersen’s tragic death in 2002 caused a profound crisis for the newly established research fi eld. Following their new research interests in contemporary themes such as multicultural education and visual culture, the remaining researchers in the fi eld, Ingelise Flensborg, Mie Buhl



and Helene Illeris, decided to start from scratch through the controversial establishment of the new research unit Visual Culture in Education at the Department of Educational Anthropology.

This choice changed the primary focus of Danish visual arts research from curriculum studies and children’s pictorial production to an educa-tional anthropological approach focused on the concept of culture and the cultural signifi cance of visuality in education. As a consequence, the initial research of the unit was not about the development of the school subject, but rather about how the concept of visual culture can enrich education across traditional divisions based on subjects and levels.

In 2003 and 2004 the unit published two special issues of educational journals dedicated to visual culture, one in Danish directed at teachers, and one in English directed at the Nordic educational research community (Buhl, Flensborg and Illeris 2003, 2004). In addition, an introduction to the research themes of the unit was published in InSEA News, the newsletter of the International Society for Education through Art. In the article the cen-tral notions of the research in visual culture were defi ned in terms of visual phenomena, visual events and visual culture as a strategy of refl ection:

The notion of visual phenomena generally includes a broad range of images, objects, and

sites such as photographs, advertisements, television broadcasts, graphical user interfaces,

paintings, sculptures, landscapes, public and private spaces etc. Even if some artefacts,

especially works of fi ne art, do have a privileged position in Western cultures, we do not

think that this should exclude educators from working with all the other forms of ima-

gery that surrounds us in late modern societies. On the contrary, following the critical

tradition in Scandinavian art education, we think that the images, objects, and sites from

which students gain their most intensive visual experiences in their daily lives should be

at the centre of education.

The notion of visual events denotes the complex interactions that take place between the

viewer and the viewed. Visual events are always geographically, historically, socially, and

culturally situated, and they always imply certain specifi c ways of looking. Working with

visual events in educational settings therefore means being aware of questions like “who

is looking at what?, when?, how?, and why?”, “who has the right to look at whom?”, “how

does the image/object/site look back at the viewer(s)?”, etc.

The notion of visual culture as a strategy of refl ection explores diff erent ways of studying

vision and visuality concerning educational practices as well as research. In educational

practices this notion addresses the conditions for choosing a certain way of studying

visual phenomena or the concepts they represent, e.g. “how is my concept of a landscape

constructed, where does it come from”, or “how is the idea of childhood constructed”. As



a strategy of refl ection, visual culture can be unfolded by making settings for students’

own art production that challenge their preconceptions. It focuses on exposing diversi-

ties and thereby unfolds pluralism as a condition of late modern societies. (Illeris, Buhl

and Flensborg 2004:10)

Other themes have been explored through individual research projects and collaborations: Ingelise Flensborg has continued her work on space and per-ception through empirical investigations of schoolyards and digital media (Flensborg 2005, 2006, Flensborg and Witfelt 2004); Mie Buhl has developed projects on the aesthetic potentials of media education (Buhl 2006, Buhl and Hemmingsen 2004), and Helene Illeris has carried out several studies in museum and gallery education (Illeris, 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006). Research in the curriculum of visual arts education in the light of visual culture has also been continued in collaborations between the researchers from the unit and postgraduate teacher trainers (Arvedsen and Illeris 2005, 2006; Buhl, Christensen and Skov 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006). Furthermore, a num-ber of M.A.’s from the former programme (most of them who now work as teacher trainers) have published important books and articles on visual culture and its relations to art education (e.g. Arvedsen 2003, 2005; Brandt, 2003; Henningsen 2003; Christensen and Skov, 2003), curriculum studies (e.g. Hansen, 2002; Andersen, 2005; Rasmussen, 2005) and contemporary art in education (e.g. Arvedsen & Illeris 2000; Seligmann & Mathiesen, 2004).

Research networksWith a very limited number of researchers in the fi eld, Danish visual arts education has established a strong tradition of networking with other natio-nal and international researchers and institutions.

From 1996 to 1999 the Nordic Network for Visual Arts Education (see Lindström, 1998; 2000) played a crucial role for international orientations of Danish visual art research. At the seminars organised by the network, Danish researchers and doctoral students had unique possibilities of meeting Nordic colleagues and international guest speakers, and many of the rela-tionships that were established, continue as foundations for new exchanges and collaborations.

After 1999, at the Nordic level, Danish researchers have primarily been engaged in the network Arts, Cultures and Education under the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA). The network replaced the net-work Aesthetics and Education in 2002 and Helene Illeris was the coordinator in 2004 and 2005. In addition to the network sessions during the NERA con-gresses, the Danish research unit organised symposia on visual culture (2003 & 2004) and teacher education (2005).



In recent years the researchers of the unit and their colleagues have decided to get more involved in the international collaborations off ered by the In-ternational Society of Education through Art (InSEA), where Mie Buhl is the Danish contact person. During the last fi ve years the congresses of this organisation have shown a strong orientation towards visual culture educa-tion, which is of special interest for Danish research. In addition, contacts have been made with researchers in Great Britain, Spain, Germany and the United States, in the form of informal exchanges rather than as a formalised network.

At the national level an informal Danish network in visual culture stu-dies was established in 2003 with participants from seven universities and research institutions. This network has been very important for the deve-lopment of this new research fi eld in Denmark. As a result of the network activities a group of researchers is now publishing an extensive volume on Danish visual culture research, including a section on the construction of knowledge in and through visual culture (Christensen & Illeris, 2008 Forth-coming).

JournalsIn Denmark the National Association of Visual Arts Teachers (Danmarks Billedkunstlærere) publishes the only existing Danish journal entirely dedi-cated to visual arts education: Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift [The Journal of Art Education]. The four issues published every year mainly feature three kinds of articles: 1) Examples of experimental practice, mainly from the Folkeskole but also from voluntary art education, upper secondary schools, teacher training colleges and art galleries. These articles are usually writ-ten by teachers or educators, 2) Research-based articles, mainly written by researchers and teacher trainers, and 3) Articles by invited writers, mostly artists and researchers from other fi elds such as philosophy or psychology. For example, the Danish psychologist Mogens Hansen, specialised in rela-tionships between art, cognition and education, has published extensively in Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift. Furthermore, the journal publishes news from the association including extensive reports on seminars and conferences and annual reports from the chair.

Other educational journals such as Unge Pædagoger [Young Educators] and Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift [The Danish Journal of Education] also accept articles on arts education and related issues. For example, the research unit Visual Culture in Education edited a special issue of Unge Pædagoger enti-rely dedicated to visual culture (Buhl, Flensborg & Illeris, 2003).

Scholarly Danish articles are preferably published in international journals. In the Nordic countries, Nordisk Pedagogik [Nordic Educational Research], Nordisk Museologi [Nordic Museology] and Nordisk Psykologi [Nordic Psy-



chology] publish articles written either in Scandinavian languages or in English, and several Danish articles have been published here (e.g. Buhl, 2004; Flensborg, 2004; Funch, 1996a; 1996b; 2000; Illeris, 1997; 2004; 2006). At the European level, Danish articles have been published in journals such as The International Journal of Education Through Art (Buhl 2005) and The International Journal of Art and Design Education (Illeris 2005).

Ph.D. and Doctorate thesesIn Denmark, as in Germany, we have two very diff erent kinds of doctoral degrees: the Ph.D. degree, which is given to candidates who have successfully completed a Ph.D. programme and have demonstrated through a publicly defended thesis a capacity to carry out a scientifi c project involving inde-pendent use of the scientifi c method of the subject, and the “classical Doc-torate degree” which is the highest academic degree, awarded for a thesis which is considered to be a highly original and outstanding contribution to a subject. The classical Doctorate degree is not related to any formalised programme of study and is normally awarded to experienced researchers, who already hold a Ph.D. and are well established in their research careers.

Since 1995 one Doctorate and three Ph.D. degrees have been awarded in visual arts education in Denmark. In 1999 Kristian Pedersen was awarded a Doctorate degree for his dissertation Bo’s pictorial socialisation, which com-pleted a more than 15-year long longitudinal study of one boy’s pictorial production combined with more than 20 years of curriculum studies in art education. Birgitte Holm Sørensen was awarded a Ph.D. for her disserta-tion Media education in an educational pin 1995, and thereby made an im-portant contribution to the development of an independent research fi eld of media education. In 2002 Helene Illeris successfully defended her disserta-tion Picture, pedagogy and power, which studies Danish visual arts education from the “postmodern” viewpoints of the French cultural theorists Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault, and the same year, Mie Buhl was awarded a Ph.D. for her dissertation Paradoxical visual arts education, a study of Danish teacher education in the visual arts through the lenses of the systems theory of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann.

Unfortunately at the moment there are no Ph.D. students in visual arts education or visual culture education enrolled in Danish universities. Nevertheless, DPU has, and has had Ph.D. students working with related the-mes of study, such as aesthetic learning, gender and ICT (Lisbeth Frølunde), the interplay between physical environments and the learning process in public schools (Birgitte Justiniano) and the home as a learning environment, with a special focus on material culture (Sara Hanghøj). In other universi-ties and institutions Ph.D. students are working on theses on themes such



as gallery education (Mette Houlberg, the Danish National Gallery) and the mediation of the visual arts in the network society (Anne Sofi e Løssing, University of Aarhus).

Furthermore, Doctorate theses such as Beth Juncker’s About the process. A research narrative on the signifi cance of the aesthetic in children’s culture (2006), Bjarne Sode Funch’s The psychology of art appreciation (1997), and Birgitte Tufte’s School and media – a construction kit for the pedagogy of moving images (1995), are signifi cant contributions to the development of certain themes in visual arts education. These dissertations are therefore included in the list, as well as the Ph.D. thesis of Susan Hinnum The struggle for reality (2002), which concerns the Danish art scene of the nineties.

M.A. thesesThe fi rst of the 82 Danish M.A.’s in visual arts education was awarded in 1997 and the last one in 2005. The theses are generally about 100 pages long and the best of them have made genuine contributions to Danish research in arts education. Scrolling down the titles of the theses, one can conclude that curriculum studies, aesthetic and artistic leaning processes and the pos-sibilities of ICT in art education are the three dominant themes of the theses, followed by drama and body in art education, museum and gallery educa-tion, children’s pictorial production, learning potentials of contemporary art, picture analysis, multicultural art education and design.

The methodological approaches used in the theses are mostly empirically based, such as action research, participant observation, interviews, and development work, while some students have chosen more theoretical approaches such as comparative literature studies or text analysis. The epis-temological approaches vary from phenomenology to critical hermeneutics and discourse analysis.

Seven theses have been awarded for independent and excellent perfor-mance: Kirsten Meisner Christensen’s thesis on pictures and narrativity (1998), Ingerid Bach Hansen’s thesis on the learning potentials of contem-porary art (2001), Kirsten Plum Throlle’s thesis about a personal web site produced by children (2001), Karsten Arvedsen’s thesis on the development of visual arts education towards a focus on visual culture (2002), Hanne Nissen Bøgesvang’s thesis about drawing as a bodily rooted experiential me-dium (2004), Dorte Villadsen’s thesis on education in art galleries (2004), and Helle Rasmussen’s thesis about aesthetic learning through pictorial pro-duction (2004).



Comments on the list of Danish publicationsThe list of Danish publications includes almost 200 references to texts pu-blished between 1995 and 2006 and written by almost 80 diff erent authors from within the fi eld of visual arts education or affi liated areas. The texts represent diff erent genres of literature from classical Doctorate theses, which are the results of almost life-long investigations, to reports and articles written by teachers and educators who conduct research based investiga-tions into actual art educational projects.

The variety of material shows very well how the fi eld has expanded in many diff erent directions. Relatively new areas of research such as visual culture, ICT and new media, sensory experiences, contemporary art prac-tices, gallery education, and children’s culture receive much attention in these texts, but also more “traditional” issues such as children’s picture pro-duction, aesthetic learning processes, curriculum studies etc. continue to be explored from new angles and in the light of new practices.

If one should focus on what is missing from the list, I would point to a curious lack of publications about multicultural art education (a couple of Mie Buhl’s texts address this important issue, but they seem to stand quite alone) and to the relatively few texts about design and architecture (in this area Ingelise Flensborg seems to dominate with her profound insights into spatial perception).

Both the selection and the categorisation of the texts enclosed in the list are of course the result of choices that could have been made diff erently. In addition to texts written as direct contributions to the fi eld of visual arts education, I have chosen to include texts from other areas, which for dif-ferent reasons have affi liations with the more restricted fi eld. Most of these texts are included because their theme relates to visual arts education, but some texts are also included mainly because they are published in books and journals from within the fi eld or because the author(s) is related to the fi eld.

On the other hand, textbooks directed at students have been excluded together with non-research-based texts, describing, for example, an innova-tive project or lesson in art education, e.g. many articles in Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift. These exclusions have been made because the aim of the list is to present an account of research-based publications, and not a comprehensive overview of all publications in the fi eld.

More than half of the texts in the list are journal articles, and a majority of these have been published in Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift. The importance of this journal for Danish visual arts education can therefore not be unde-restimated as the place where the interests of teachers, teacher trainers and researchers are represented side by side.



The future of Danish research in visual arts education?As mentioned in the introduction and in the section on the latest devel-opments in the fi eld of research, Danish visual arts education research is facing a rather complicated situation because of both the ongoing politi-cal reforms of the educational systems and a certain fragmentation of the fi eld caused by the closure of the M.A. and Ph.D. programmes in visual arts education. An outcome of this situation has been that the previously very strong connections between teaching, teacher training and research have been loosened in favour of a new and quite open perspective. Whether this situation should be considered positive or negative is hard to say due to the many unknown factors. As mentioned earlier, the latest university reform has, within one year, reduced the number of Danish universities from 12 to six, and DPU is now continuing its activities under the much bigger Uni-versity of Aarhus. Alongside with the university reform, the “Centres for Higher Education” (CVU), which were established as recently as in 2003, and which included most of the former 18 teacher training colleges, have been replaced by the new and even larger Professional University Colleges.

It is still too early to say what eff ects these further organisational chan-ges will have for Danish studies in visual arts education, but for sure the situation of continuous political and organisational pressure has increased the diffi culties within the fi eld. At the moment it seems probable that the research unit Visual Culture in Education will not be allowed to continue its activities as an independent unit, although a new Assistant Professor, Pia Lundberg has been appointed to the unit in April 2008. Furthermore in the present situation it can be diffi cult to reach agreement among researchers and teacher trainers as to whether it is more important to develop new and broad perspectives on visual arts education such as visual culture or to fi ght harder for what we have, e.g. through more “traditional” in-depth studies of the benefi ts of visual arts education from cultural, sociological and psycho-logical perspectives.

A recent report from the Danish Arts Council (Bamford & Qvortrup, 2006) reviews art education provisions and quality within the Danish Fol-keskole in Music, Visual Arts and Handicrafts through an examination of fi ve case studies from selected schools and a content analysis of legislative chan-ges, policy and reforms in the area. The main fi nding of the report is that while the art education provisions vary from “barely adequate” to “good”, the evaluation of the quality of arts programmes is insuffi cient. In spite of these very rough generalisations based on scanty and far from homogenous material, there can be no doubt that the conclusions of the report point in the right direction: the development towards more refl ection, evaluations



and research in visual arts education, which has been taking place during the last 10-20 years, must be reinforced if we want to improve Danish visual arts education at all levels.

The list of publications in this volume suggests that Danish visual arts education is a very active fi eld. Among the authors are many very visionary teachers, teacher trainers and researchers who, through both their writings and their experimental approaches to visual arts education try not just to keep the “status quo” of the subject, but to renew both its content and form. Hopefully, the publications of the next 10 years will consolidate this strong tradition and reinforce visual arts and visual culture as educational perspec-tives in spite of political storms.

References

Andersen, Kirsten Bak (2005). Scenen er din! – Relationer mellem kunst og hverdagsliv i billed-

kunstundervisningen [The fl oor is yours! Relations between art and everyday life in visual

arts education]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift (2), pp. 6-10.


in the subject of visual arts?]. Praktik och teori (3), pp. 22-32.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2005). Hvad skal vi undervise i, når vi underviser med visuel kultur? [What

should we teach when we teach visual culture?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift (3), pp. 7-11.

Arvedsen, Karsten & Illeris, Helene (2005). Mellem kunstblik og antroblik. Rapport fra et eksperiment-

erende undervisningsforløb i visuel kultur på læreruddannelsen i billedkunst [Between art-eye and

anthro-eye. Report from an experimental project in visual culture in art teacher education].

CVU Storkøbenhavns rapportserie, Den.

Arvedsen, Karsten & Illeris, Helene (2006). Mellem kunstblik og antroblik – overvejelser fra et

eksperimenterende undervisningsforløb i visuel kultur [Between art-eye and anthro-eye –

an experimental project in visual culture]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift (3), pp. 26-29.

Arvedsen, Karsten & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (2000). Samtidskunst og undervisning – en antologi

[Contemporary art and education – an anthology]. (6). Copenhagen, Den.: The Danish

University of Education. (Billedpædagogiske Studier)

Bamford, Anne & Qvortrup, Matt (2006). The ildsjæl in the classroom: a review of Danish arts

education in the folkeskole. Copenhagen: The Danish Arts Council.

Brandt, Karen (2003). I Grønland spiser de tarme – om det visuelles medvirken I danske børns

konstruktion af Grønland og grønlændere [In Greenland they eat intestines – the role of the

visual in Danish children’s construction of Greenland and Greenlanders]. Unge Pædagoger

(7-8), pp. 24-30.

Buhl, Mie (2002). Paradoksal billedpædagogik: variationer i læreruddannelsens billed kunstfag

[Paradoxical visual arts education. Variations in the subject of visual arts in teacher

education]. Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.

Buhl, Mie (2004). Visual culture as a strategy of refl ection in education. Nordisk Pedagogik (4),

277-293.



Buhl, Mie (2005). Visual culture as a strategic approach to art production. International Journal

of Education through Art, 1(2), 103-114.

Buhl, Mie (2006). The aesthetic actualisation of learning potential with media and ICT. In M.

Buhl, B. Meyer & B. Holm Sørensen (Eds.), Media and ICT – learning potentials (pp. 207-225).

Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education Press

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2003). Praktik – set i lyset af billedkun-

stfaget [The practice of teaching the visual arts] (Vol. 1). Copenhagen, Den.: N Zahle Semina-

rium. (Kamelrefl eksioner – tematiseringer af læreruddannelsens professionssigte)

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2004). Faglighed set i lyset af billed-

kunstfaget [The subject of visual arts from an educational perspective] (Vol. 2). Copenhagen:

The Danish University of Education Press. (Kamelrefl eksioner – tematiseringer af lærerud-

dannelsens professionssigte)

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2005). Eksamen – set i lyset af billed-

kunstfaget [Visual arts education and assessment] (Vol. 3). Copenhagen: The Danish Univer-

sity of Education Press. (Kamelrefl eksioner – tematiseringer af læreruddannelsens profes-

sionssigte)

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2006). Som man råber i den grønne

skov får man svar – om evalueringens muligheder og faldgruber i billedkunstfaget [What

you ask for is what you get – the possibilities and pitfalls of assesment in the subject of

visual arts]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift (3), 3-7.

Buhl, Mie, Flensborg, Ingelise & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (2003). Visuel kultur [Visual culture].

(7-8). [Special issue]. Unge Pædagoger.

Buhl, Mie, Flensborg, Ingelise & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (2004). Visual culture in education. (4).

[Special Issue]. Nordisk Pedagogik.

Buhl, Mie & Hemmningsen, Karen (2004). Unges fritidsrelaterede æstetiske medieressourcer i en

pædagogisk kontekst [Young people’s aesthetic media resources in an educational context].

Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education Press.

Christensen, Hans Dam & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (Forthcoming). Visuel kultur – viden, liv, politik

[Visual Culture – Knowledge, Life, Politics]. Copenhagen: Multivers.

Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2003). Visual Date – om lærerstuderendes brug

af billeder i et elektronisk kommunikationsforløb [Visual date – student teacher’s use of

pictures in electronic communication]. Unge Pædagoger (7-8), pp. 8-15.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2004). Visual culture in education. the ex-centric observer and the “break-

down” of aff ordances. Nordisk Pedagogik (4), pp. 268-276.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2005). Visuel kultur i læremidler i netværk. Forskningsrapport i tilknytning til

ITMF-Projekt 321 [Visual culture in net-based learning materials, research report, ITMF-

project 321]. Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education Press.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2006). Local pictures – Global groundings. In M. Buhl, B. Meyer & B. Holm

Sørensen (Eds.), Media and ICT – learning potentials (pp. 111-128). Copenhagen: The Danish

University of Education Press.



Funch, Bjarne Sode (1996a). Den æstetiske oplevelse som transcendent fænomen [The

aesthetic experience as a transcendent phenomenon]. Nordisk Psykologi (48), pp. 214-232.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (1996b). Kunstoplevelsens psykologi med fokus på billedkunst [The

psychology of art appreciation with focus on the visual arts]. Nordisk Psykologi (48),

pp. 266-278.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (1997). The psychology of art appreciation. University of Copenhagen, Den.,

Museum Tusculanum Press.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (2000). Hvorfor ser vi på billedkunst? [Why do we look at visual arts?].

Nordisk Museologi (1), pp. 87-96.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (1996). Kulturarv og kulturarvoverføring i grunnskolen med vekt på den

estetiske dimensjonen: en begreps- og erfaringsanalyse med et didaktisk perspektiv [Cultural

heritage and transference of cultural heritage in compulsory school emphasizing the

aesthetic dimension: an analysis of terms and experience in an educational perspective].

Universitetet i Oslo, Norw.: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet.

Hansen, Ingerid Bach (2002). Hvorfor kan det gøres anderledes? En diskussion af billedkunstfagets

fagdidaktik [Why could it be done diff erently? A discussion of didactics in the visual arts].

Unge Pædagoger (6), pp. 1-16.

Henningsen, Lars (2003). Video i Versailles – om “visuelle begivenheder” før, under og efter

videooptagelser [Video in Versailles – visual events before, during and after videorecor-

dings]. Unge Pædagoger (7-8), pp. 41-49.

Hinnum, Susan (2002). Kampen om virkeligheden. Det iscenesatte handlingsværk som det lod sig

iagttage på den danske billedkunstscene i 1990’erne, perspektiveret på baggrund af de foregående

tredive års internationale kunsttradition [The struggle for reality. The staging action work

that could be observed on the Danish art scene in the 1990s, viewed in the light of the previous

30 years of international art tradition]. Aarhus University, Den.

Illeris, Helene (2002). Billedet, pædagogikken og magten. Positioner, genealogi og postmoderne

optikker i det billedpædagogiske felt [Picture, pedagogy, and power: Positions, genealogy, and

postmodern viewpoints in the fi eld of art education]. Copenhagen: The Danish University

of Education.

Illeris, Helene (2003). Performative positioner i kunstpædagogik [Art education in museums

and galleries: Performative positions]. Valör (4), pp. 15-28.

Illeris, Helene (2004a). Educations of vision. relational strategies in visual culture. Nordisk

Pedagogik (4), pp. 250-267.

Illeris, Helene (2004b). Kunstpædagogisk forskning og formidling i Norden 1995–2004 [Nordic



Illeris, Helene (2005). Young people and contemporary art. The International Journal of Art and

Design Education, 24(3), 231-242.

Illeris, Helene (2006a). Kunstkammeret som dannelsesritual [Educational Rituals at The Royal

Danish Kunstkammer]. Nordisk Museologi (1), pp. 59-73.



Illeris, Helene (2006b). Museums and galleries as performative sites for lifelong learning.

Museum and Society, 4(1), pp. 15-26.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (1998). Nordic Visual arts research: A theoretical and methodological review.

Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum

Studies, Vol. 2)

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (2000). The cultural context: Comparative studies of art education and

children’s drawings. Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm

Library of Curriculum Studies 7)

Pedersen, Kristian (1999). Bo’s Billedbog – en drengs billedmæssige socialisation [Bo’s pictorial

socialization – and some reconstructive ideas about the theory of children’s pictorial acts

and the theory of pictorial art education]. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

Rasmussen, Helle (2005). Kan vi gøre billedkunstundervisningen mere meningsfuld for eleverne?

– om aktuelle og begrundede udfordringer til billedkunstfaget i skolen og på læreruddan-

nelsen [Can we make visual arts education more meaningful to students? Recent challenges

to the subject of visual arts in schools and teacher education]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift

(2), pp. 2-5.

Seligmann, Tine & Mathiesen, Frants (Eds.). (2004). Mødesteder – Formidling af samtidskunst

[Meeting places – education with contemporary art]. Frederiksberg, Den.: Samfunds-

litteratur.

Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (1995). Medier på begyndertrinnet – i et mediedidaktisk perspektiv [Media

education in an Educational Perspective]. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educa-

tional Studies.

Tufte, Birgitte (1995). Skole og medier. Byggesæt til de levende billeders pædagogik [School and

Media – a Construction Kit for the Pedagogy of moving Images]. Copenhagen: The Royal

Danish School of Educational Studies.



MULTICULTURALISM AND ARTS-BASED RESEARCH

Themes in Finnish studies 1995–2006

Marjo Räsänen

Finnish school system and teacher educationCharacteristic of the Finnish educational system is that, similar to all Nordic countries, it is state regulated and free from expenses from pre-school through the university. Finnish children begin their school at the age of seven. However, most of them have spent several years in kindergarten by that time or at least spent a preparatory year in pre-school preceding the actual school start. The new national curriculum for Finnish comprehensive schools (2004) lumps together art, music, handicrafts, and physical education and calls them Arts and skills. This curriculum area is allocated a minimum of fi ve hours per week in grades 1–4 (children aged 7–10) and six hours in grades 5–9 (children aged 11–15). There is a forty-fi ve minute lesson of visual arts per week for students in grades 1–6 taught by classroom teachers. In grades 7–9, visual art is taught by art specialists and is a compulsory 38-hour course with additional optional courses in some cases. One mandatory 38-hour class, in both visual art and music, is required for upper secondary students aged 16–19. They also have a possibility for optional courses.

Unlike in the other Nordic countries, all teachers qualifi ed for permanent positions in Finnish schools are required to hold master’s degrees. Master’s degrees in art education are off ered by two universities in Finland. Minors or courses in art studies for classroom teachers are included in class teacher education and off ered by eleven departments of teacher education. At the University of Art and Design in Helsinki (UIAH), the fi ve-year programme for art teachers includes studies in art and art education with associated stu-dies in education at the University of Helsinki. The University of Lapland in Rovaniemi has off ered a parallel programme for 18 years now. Unfortunately the number of classes given by professional art teachers in comprehensive schools has been alarmingly cut down on during the last ten years. At the same time as classroom teachers get more responsibility for art education


at elementary school, art studies in Finland’s eleven teacher education pro-grammes are strongly reduced. Arts are usually taught by generalist class-room teachers whose education only includes approximately 135 hours of studies in visual art (more than half of this being individual readings). New teacher education programmes off er a possibility for a classroom teacher to study an extra year and become a qualifi ed art teacher for grades 1–9 (and for an art teacher to get the degree of a classroom teacher). However, so far only about ten classroom-teacher students a year have been qualifi ed for this double degree.

The reform concerning double degrees is connected to the ongoing pro-cess of standardizing European university degrees so that it is possible to continue from bachelor’s level to master’s level in all subjects taught at dif-ferent universities. There are good and bad sides to this reform. In teacher education, the change refl ects an idea of general transfer in the sense that a teacher is no longer assumed to need special age-dependent pedagogical skills. It also contains the misunderstanding that concepts and strategies of the disciplines underlying diff erent school subjects would be similar or that a student could adopt them in a year. Teachers specialized in one sub-ject are supposed to learn the strategies of all ten subjects that a classroom teacher teaches during a year. One solution to this problem has been off ered by integration. The idea of integration is realized in the new Finnish core curriculum (2004) that decrees that in and between each school subject, holistic, integrative learning should take place within seven carefully de-fi ned thematic areas. However, interdisciplinarity is not an easy trick but a complex issue even between arts and skills subjects and it has to be studied carefully (Räsänen, 2005; Puurula, 1998).

The number of art classes in schools runs parallel with the changing pro-fessional titles of Finnish art educators refl ecting paradigm shifts in the fi eld. In 1950, we ceased being “teachers of drawing and handwriting” and became something that roughly translates as “teachers of imaging skills”. During the 1970s, art education in the Nordic countries was strongly infl u-enced by the so-called polarizing method developed in Sweden, grounded in semiotics that emphasized visual communication (see Lindström in this publication). This is why Scandinavian art educators understand teaching visual culture to be self-evident. For instance, producing and analyzing pho-tographs and movies has been part of the Finnish art curriculum for thirty years. Also, contextualization through art history and media analysis has been included in the Finnish art curriculum since the 1970s. (See Räsänen, 2005; Pohjakallio 1998.) However, it has been suggested that the current name of the school subject art should be changed into visual culture. This



has been proposed especially by those of us who were disappointed as the professional title adopted in the 1950s was changed into “art teachers” in 1994 and felt that the emphasis shifted towards “fi ne arts”. Even though most art educators in Finland implement the open, postmodern art concept, many of them are afraid that the title adopted in 1994 puts too much emp-hasis on the receptive side of art teaching.

Research programmes and networksThe former College of Industrial Arts was awarded university status in 1973. During the last quarter of a century, approximately 30 master’s theses each year have been written at the School of Art Education (previously called Department of Art Education) at the University of Art and Design Helsinki. The amount of M.A. theses doubled as the art teacher programme was started in 1990 in the Faculty of Art and Design at the University of Lapland. Most of the postgraduate research reports published in art education in Finland are dissertations written at these two universities training art teachers The structure of the doctoral programme at the UIAH and Lapland is similar, following the model of other Finnish universities. Approximately one year of full-time study of classes in theory and research methods of art education is required. After introductory seminars, doctoral students often continue their work as members of more focused research groups.

While researchers at the University of Art and Design Helsinki or Uni-versity of Lapland seldom have art theoretical background, the case is dif-ferent with the research done at the University of Jyväskylä, Department of Art and Culture Studies that has a theoretical programme in arts educa-tion (see Sederholm, 1998; Pääjoki, 2004). Similarly to the Swedish system with no doctoral degrees in art education, some postgraduate research with educational emphasis is also done in departments of teacher education (see Karvinen, 2004; Kallio, 2005). A number of master-level theses are submitted in each of them every year, too. The fi rst Finnish dissertation on art educa-tion by Inkeri Sava (1981) also was completed at the faculty of education at the University of Helsinki. (See also Saarnivaara, 1993.)

Typical for Finnish postgraduate students is that besides doing research they have a full time job. This usually means that the approximate time to complete doctoral studies is often (against all recommendations) 10 years. Only a few students get research grants; these students usually belong to some research group fi nanced by the Academy of Finland. One example of this kind of state-supported research was the graduate school Multicultural art education organized by UIAH 1999–2002. Ten doctoral students from



Finnish art universities got 1–3-year grants for study in this “consortium”. An action research project called Art education in a multicultural context (Taikomo, 1997–2000) by researchers from art universities and the city of Helsinki, was executed within the graduate school. This educational deve-lopment work was carried out in the lower grades of a school with a mul-ticultural emphasis (Sava, 2001). Another team of action researchers at the graduate school participated in a project called Images and identities (1999–2003). They investigated visual arts education in comprehensive and upper secondary education and in folk high schools, teacher training universities and museums in Finland. The main research question of the group was how educators in these institutions understand the role of art education in their professional identity. The group was also interested in how beginning and experienced teachers of visual arts were adapting to the new role of a cultural worker while simultaneously functioning as teachers, artists, and researchers (Räsänen, 2005).

Because of the young age of the discipline and the need for Ph.D. level art educators at Finnish universities, doctors of arts have been drawn into the everyday university work with very few possibilities for research work. One exception is the research project Expressive artistic activities and self-under-standing of children from immigrant and adverse social background (Syreeni, 2001–2003), which was a continuation of the research project Taikomo. Syre-eni continued as part of the national multidisciplinary research programme on marginalisation, inequality and ethnic relations. The general aim of the project was to intertwine expressive artistic activities and the phenomena of ethnicity, diversity, social class adversities and being obliged to be an out-sider in the culture. The project followed the action research model and took children’s life narratives as the starting point for expressive activities (Bardy et al., 2004).

The most recent research project at the University of Art and Design Helsinki funded by the Academy of Finland is called Artistically based experiences in art education and teaching (Artbeat, 2007–2009). In this research project, the artistic process is studied as part of an art educational activity, and the role of contemporary artistic features in teaching is investigated. A commonly asked question is if contemporary artistic activities can be use-ful as interdisciplinary agents for teaching both in art schools and in general education. The composition of the research group is in line with the recom-mendations of the Academy of Finland, i.e., in addition to six students at UIAH and other Finnish universities, the group has three international stu-dents from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The research project is connected to the network BaltArt started at the School of Art Education in 2004. The



aim of the network is to link together art institutions and individuals in diff erent cities around the Baltic Sea. Corresponding international coope-ration is going on between countries in Northern Europe organised by the University of Lapland. In addition to specifi ed networks, the University of Art and Design in Helsinki has a large population of international students, fi ve of them doing their doctoral studies at the School of Art Education. The school also has invited visiting professors from U.S. universities since 1987. Harlan Hoff a, Arthur Efl and, Elizabeth Garber, Patricia Stuhr and Karen Keifer-Boyd have each taught a semester at the UIAH. The graduate school Multicultural art education also arranged several seminar series with inter-national teachers like Arthur Bochner and Carolyn Ellis (narrative research methods) and Patti Lather (feminist research methods).

The roots of cooperation between Nordic researchers in art education can be tracked down to the yearly summer courses for art teachers that the Nordic countries have taken turns to organise for 40 years now. Although these courses have a practical emphasis, new research has also been intro-duced during them. At the offi cial level, research cooperation between the Nordic countries was fi rst realized through the Network of Nordic Resear-chers in Visual Arts Education during the years 1994–1997. Four “summer schools” for doctoral students were organized with the support of the Nordic Academy for Advanced Study (NorFA). The theme of the fi rst week-long research seminar was called Art, cognition and curriculum and it was organized in Bräkne-Hoby, Sweden, in 1994, with Arthur Efl and and Judith Smith-Koroscik as guest lecturers. The next workshop for Nordic researchers in visual art education was held in Helsinki, Finland, in 1995. In the summer of 1996 a symposium on Traditions and methods in visual arts education took place in Tisvildeleje, Denmark, with Brent Wilson as the keynote speaker. Another research course was held that summer in Ronneby, Sweden, on the theme Intelligence, creativity and curriculum, chaired by Howard Gardner. The following summer’s symposium The cultural context: Comparative studies of art education and children’s drawings took place in Vilnius, Lithuania. (See Lindström, 1998; 2000.)

In addition, congresses of the International Society for Education through Art (InSEA) in Stockholm 1988, Helsinki 1992 and the InSEA on Sea con-gress 2003 organized cooperatively by Finland, Sweden and Estonia have been signposts of Nordic research. Presently, the cooperation seems to have slowed down, with some individual researchers working on reports like Nordic research in visual arts education in museums and galleries (Illeris, 2004) and this publication. In addition to the InSEA congresses, meeting resear-chers in the congresses of the Association for Teacher Educators in Europe



(ATEE) and the European Educational Research Association (EERA) have been important as opportunities for the Finns to position themselves in the international research community. The special interest group of aesthetic education in the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) has also off ered a site for art educators to exchange ideas. Proceedings of these con-ferences are often important documents of research exchange even though articles in them are not included in the Finnish bibliography (Appendix 3) because of their un-refereed nature. At the national level, researchers in art education have attended the yearly meetings of the Finnish Educational Research Association and in the Symposium of Research in Didactic Studies. Also, research seminars arranged by art universities, especially the annual seminar on research methodology at the University of Lapland have been important for the development of the fi eld (see Tuominen & Kurki, 2001).

Methods of Finnish postgraduate studiesAlthough studies at the postgraduate level have been formally possible at the University of Art and Design Helsinki as long as for a quarter of a cen-tury, the altogether twelve dissertations in art education have been defended during the ten-year period covered by this report. Two doctoral degrees have been earned at the University of Lapland, which started its programme in art education in 1990. Fourteen researchers have defended a “little dissertation” at the UIAH and two in Lapland, thus earning a licentiate’s degree, which is an academic degree between the master and doctoral levels (an individual holding a doctorate from an art university is called Doctor of Arts, D.A.). The fi rst postgraduate examination at the University of Art and Design in Helsinki was taken in the Department of Art Education, and it was the licentiate thesis of Ulla Hosia (1988). Four more licentiate theses (Seitamaa-Oravala, 1990; Mantere, 1991; Ovaska-Airasmaa, 1992; Räsänen, 1993) were published before the fi rst dissertation was defended (Räsänen, 1997). It has not been possible to earn a licentiate at the UIAH after 1999, but this degree is still admitted at other universities (fi ve of them are connected to art edu-cation and included in the Finnish bibliography). In addition to the doctoral studies completed in art education departments, some related research is done also at the other Finnish universities (ten such items are included in the bibliography, most of them originate in the faculties of education).

The very fi rst years of the doctoral programme in the Department of Art Education at the University of Art and Design in Helsinki were infl uenced by research done in the former Soviet Union and West Germany. The shift to Anglo-American theories took place at the end of the 1980s. If we look



at the research during this quarter of a century from the perspective of paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1962), we can see that the knowledge interest in the Finnish research on art education, similar to educational research in general (Habermas, 1971), has turned from prediction to understanding and emancipation. This has meant the rise of interpretative, constructivist and phenomenological hermeneutic paradigms. Methodologically, the research projects in Finland carried out to date have placed emphasis on the last mentioned paradigm. The infl uence of critical traditions, such as participa-tory action research, feminism and other postmodern phenomena, can be recognized as well.

If we describe Finnish research in art and education using Kuhnian ter-minology, we can say that during the 1990s, there has been a battle going on in the research community between the more traditional methods and arts-based research. Some scholars have wanted to see so called artistic research not only as a new methodology but considered it as a new paradigm. Accor-ding to Patti Lather (1992), we are living in a post-paradigmatic world ruled by deconstructive approaches and diff erent post-phenomena. As Lather suggests, Thomas Kuhn’s conception of paradigm shifts should be abandoned and the research world should be seen as a fi eld of constant paradigm wars with no winners. Instead of speaking about a new victorious paradigm, a more fruitful way to look at post-positivist research is to see it as cross-disciplinary fer-tilization of ideas. Thinking this way, artistic research could be placed on the margins of the paradigm map and we can see that it both borrows from other methods and has an infl uence on them.

The Finnish debate about artistic research has been going on in parallel with – and very often without noticing – the North-American discussion about arts-based research. Ever since Elliot Eisner’s (1991) pioneering writ-ings about connections between art and science, discussion about arts-based methods has become world-wide and the methods have also become accep-ted in the fi eld of educational research (see Barone & Eisner, 1997; Diamond et al., 1999). The American Educational Research Association (AERA) has housed an Arts-Based Educational Research (ABER) special group for 11 years. There is also a network of researchers in the fi eld located at the University of Toronto by the name of the Centre for Arts-Informed Research (CAIR). As Tom Barone (2006) summarizes, alternate labels of the Eisnerian-style arts-based research suggested are aesthetically-based research, a/r/tography, image-based research, arts-inspired research, practice-based research or arts practice as research.

At the Finnish art universities, arts-emphasized dissertations have been possible for over twenty years now; so far a doctoral work still has to include



a theoretical part. The fi rst doctors to include an artistic part (concert) in their dissertation came from the Sibelius Academy and the fi rst “artistic” re-search report in visual arts was published ten years ago at the University of Art and Design Helsinki (Eskola, 1997). Since then, almost all dissertations at the School of Art Education at the UIAH have at least commented on artistic research, and arts-based methods using visuals as data and as a form of investigation and reporting are broadly utilized in studies in process. Close to these methods are studies using narrative approaches where the written form of the report often turns into a verbal work of art (Nelimarkka, 2001). In her thesis, Mari Krappala (1999) opens an insight to contemporary art by dissolving barriers between fi ction and facts. The form of a research report has also been challenged by presenting results of the research process in an exhibition (Pullinen, 2003) or publishing artistic research data and/or results on cd-roms (Paatela-Nieminen, 2000; Kankkunen, 2004; Ulkuniemi, 2005). Several books about artistic research in general (Kiljunen & Hannula, 2002) and arts-based research in art education have been published. In his book of the philosophy of science, Juha Varto (2000) has used art education as an example of how a new discipline is formed (see also Varto et al., 2003).

Themes of Finnish postgraduate studiesVisual culture can be seen as kind of a meta-concept for all kinds of images and visual material dealt with in art education as suggested by the promoters of visual culture education (VCAE). In his draft of a knowledge base of re-search in visual arts education (Figure 2 in this publication), Lars Lindström uses the concepts visual culture and visual communication as counter-poles corresponding to responding to and producing art. Seen from the point of view of Finnish traditions of art teaching, skills and procedures in making art is also a central research category. In teaching, this includes emphasis on productive activities and views of art practice as research (Sullivan, 2005) and is thus related to artistic research methods. One example of artists as researchers is the case of Lea and Pekka Kantonen (1999). The book about their artistic and art educational projects is a polyphonic narration of their journeys to three cultures. This category also contains the research of artistic learning processes investigated in dissertations about artists’ works. In her study, Päivi Granö (2000) explores three artists’ childhood images. Based on her interviews, Granö collected an exhibition of the artists’ works. Intervie-wing has also been used in two licentiate theses about contemporary Fin-nish artists. Liisa Piironen (1998) looks at the connections between art and play and Tarja Trygg (1999) is in search of the fascination of a photograph.



Mari Krappala’s (1999) study is about the artistic process of a male photo-grapher seen from the feminist perspective. Researchers have also analyzed their own creative processes as artists. Jouko Pullinen (2003) has carried out a visual dialogue with Albrecht Dürer by circulating his works in his own production. Riitta Nelimarkka (2001) transformed her artworks into a philosophic and fi ctional text.

Visual culture was the main “paradigm” of Finnish art education during the 1970s. Notwithstanding this – or maybe because of it – only a few researchers have been interested in the area before the new “boom” of visual culture in the 2000s. The fi rst academic study of the theme is Pekka Manninen’s (1995) dissertation on the diff erent meanings of cartoons as a hobby and a tool of resistance. Another work that belongs under the related titles picture analysis and visual literacy is Seija Ulkuniemi’s study (2005) of family photography. Martina Paatela-Nieminen (2000) approaches child culture intertextually from the point of view of book illustrations. In her research report published in the form of a cd-rom, she focuses on cultural diff erences of the illustrations in Alice in Wonderland. Beyond this, child & youth study do not have many representatives in Finland. Kira Outinen (1995) is the only one who has studied children’s drawings. There was no research on young children’s art education after Mirja Ovaska-Airasmaa’s (1992) and Sinikka Kuosmanen’s (1994) licentiate theses until Sinikka Rusanen’s (2007) dissertation about early childhood art education and student kindergarten teachers’ professional identities.

In Finnish art education, multiculturalism (and identity issues in a broader sense) can be distinguished as its own research category. Cultural studies have been the contextual reference of several studies done in Finland during the last ten years. Many studies have their roots in the postmodern concept of culture and the methods developed in cultural studies have been broadly applied. As part of multiculturalism, Tarja Kankkunen (2004) looks at the “gender play” in art education through the lens of feminism. Her research report is a cd-rom where theoretical groundings wind up with rich visual school-ethnographic material. Lea Kantonen (2005) is an artist whose disser-tation about art workshops for youngsters in four diff erent cultures is a mix-ture of social and multicultural issues.

Multicultural issues have been looked at both as intercultural practices and textual discourses. Discourse analysis has also been used to see the way art teachers ground their work. Kati Rantala’s (2001) perspective to the fi eld comes from sociology. She relates written documents of the fi eld to the ways students in art schools for children and youth (a wide-spread after-school system) talk about art. In her licentiate thesis, Tarja Pääjoki (1998) used



discourse analysis to study diff erent conceptions of art education, especially the DBAE-movement. In her dissertation (2004), she focuses on how multi-culturalism is approached in diff erent fi elds of arts education. Riitta Apuli-Suuronen (1999) uses discourse analytical tools when comparing written documents of Finnish and Swedish upper secondary school art curricula in her research, which is the only study in Finland related to the category of arts education policy. Discourse analysis is also used in Pirkko Pohjakallio’s (2005) dissertation of the changing justifi cations for art education between 1945 and 1990. Her study is based on biographical interviews and it is a part of a larger research project on the history of Finnish art education. Another work related to this fi eld is Kerttu Mäkelä’s (2002) licentiate thesis about the Finnish folk-school teacher training seminars in the years 1899–1945.

Art appreciation is an example of an area where diff erent research cate-gories overlap. Because this concept has its connections to the fi eld of aest-hetics and museum education, art understanding is a more proper word to describe the fi rst dissertation study of the Department of Art Education at the UIAH. In her thesis, Marjo Räsänen (1997) builds bridges between diff e-rent approaches to art education and develops a constructivist-experiential framework for picture analysis as a tool for identity construction. Her main idea is to fi nd connections between the cultures in and beyond the artwork by contextualizing its viewer and maker. Räsänen’s description of aesthetic development has connections to child study and her discussion about visual conceptualization refers to theories of learning and meaning-making. Similarly to Räsänen, Juha Merta (2006) emphasizes the role of productive activities as a tool for understanding art and self while portraying elementary teacher students. Parallel to the analysis of students’ art interpretation following Räsänen’s “model” of picture analysis, Merta describes his own processes of art making. Picture analysis has obvious connections to art criticism and often also to discourse analysis.

A more direct connection to art appreciation in its aesthetic meaning is seen in Pirjo Viitanen’s (1998) research about the art preferences of ele-mentary school students. Art appreciation is also the goal of Anna-Maija Issakainen’s (2004) study of museum education, where she discusses infor-mation networks as a channel of mediating art and describes cooperation between one school and a museum. Another project aimed at connecting schools and museums is described in the licentiate thesis of Marja-Leena Bilund and Sirpa Svahn-Kumpulainen (2005). A historical view to art museum education can be found in Tapio Suominen’s (1998) licentiate thesis about Alfred Lichtwark.

An important issue related to Finnish research in art education (as well as educational research in general) is the relationship between research and



practice. Dissertations connected to the school practices are the sites where research categories emphasizing visual arts or education meet. Both action research and methods related to it have been used in Finland, with resear-chers also working as teachers. Action research has been connected to criti-cal pedagogy, and “artistic action research” has been discussed (see Räsänen, 2005). More ethnographically orientated methods have been used in the stu-dies of Kankkunen (2004) and Kantonen (2005). Both Räsänen’s (1997) and Viitanen’s (1998) dissertations about art interpretation have strong connec-tions to school practices. So does Heidi Karvinen’s (2004) study about arts and interdisciplinarity at elementary level that is also an example of edu-cation through art. In her licentiate thesis, Anna-Christina Forsman (1997) searches practical tools for classroom teachers to promote visual thinking through instructional discussions. Educational assessment is approached in two licentiate theses. Inari Grönholm (1999) describes one portfolio process and Martti Raevaara (1999) interviews students and teachers participating in group critiques in fi ne art classes at the UIAH.

Contemporary art theories and issues of philosophy of art education have been vividly discussed among Finnish art scholars during the period of this report (see Varto, 1996; 2003). However, philosophy is the theoretical back-ground only in Minna Kallio’s thesis (2005) on the signifi cance of the image in educational context. In her licentiate thesis, Raija Miettinen (1998) dis-cusses aesthetic education and the meaning of art in personal development. Sirkka Laitinen (2003) puts the issue into school practice by studying the possibilities of visual art education in backing up the youth’s aesthetical and ethical thinking. Theories of learning and meaning-making in Finnish research in art education very much touch upon the issues of postmodern art theory. Empowering environmental art is the framework of Kaija Hannula’s (2002) licentiate thesis. Seija Karppinen (2005) makes conceptual analysis of basic crafts education by asking what art makes of crafts. Helena Sederholm (1998) studies the ways to approach experiential and social modes of contemporary art. Her work has connections to integration and multimodal teaching and learning in arts education.

Looking towards the futureSeeing Finnish studies in art education (both at master’s and doctoral levels) in relation to Lars Lindström’s knowledge base of visual arts education, it is easy to fi ll most of its categories. Some concepts used by Liora Bresler (2007) in her handbook of research in arts education serve as useful subtitles when looking at the Finnish research in progress (see also Eisner & Day,



2004). For example, informal art education is an area that becomes visible. At the School of Art Education at the UIAH, social issues are approached in ongoing studies about art’s role in social and health care, art education with old people, with bed patients and with children suff ering from dyspha-sia. Painting as a matter of inquiry is studied through a dialogue between a researcher and a person with autism. Perhaps technology, as an important contemporary aspect of skills and procedures in making art, might deserve its own subtitle, too. The calls for virtual learning environments in art edu-cation are discussed in three Finnish studies in progress. There is also an ongoing study focused on process learning in www-based media education. One doctoral student approaches the switchover from analogical to digital photography through a globally shared process of making “solargraphs” with lensless cameras.

A category that is necessary for Finnish research in art education is environ -mental education. It has been a central part of our curriculum since the 1970s. Environmental education (including nature and environmental art as well as design of everyday objects and architecture) is an interdisciplinary but still independent area connected to contemporary theories of art and culture (see Mantere, 1995). There is a strong emphasis on environmental and community-based art education at the University of Lapland. Both Mirja Hiltunen’s (1999) licentiate thesis and Anne Keskitalo’s (2006) dis-sertation have their focus on environment and contemporary art. In her doctoral study, Keskitalo (2006) transforms the experience of travelling to her own work of art and relates it to school practices. Of the thirteen dis-sertations in progress, three have their roots in the general emphasis on environment and community in the department. Another stream in Rova-niemi is characterized by visual culture. Seija Ulkuniemi’s licentiate thesis (1988) and dissertation (2005) are about the genre of family photographs. In addition to the theoretical part, the dissertation includes interviews in the exhibitions of the researcher’s photos. Four dissertations in progress at the University of Lapland belong to the category of visual culture, three studies deal with artistic processes and one with art teachers’ biographies. One researcher looks at art schools for children and youth from the boys’ perspective. Finally, postmodern discourse is examined through texts dealing with education of art. (See www.ulapland.fi )

The category of environmental education cannot be separated from the context of contemporary art, which seems to be the starting point of the majority of studies in progress at the School of Art Education at the UIAH. Three foreign doctoral students at the University of Art and De-sign Helsinki have environmental education as their research area. One student investigates playful and performative aesthetic elements in the en-



vironment and another one looks at the epistemological foundations of art-based environmental education through ethnographically informed inquiry. Places in contemporary Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian art are studied by one student. Environment and contemporary art are connected also in a study about the environmental art of contemporary outsider artists. Art theoretical emphasis can be recognized in topics such as situating meanings of portraits, painting as a refl ection of a worldview or an artist’s ideals. The roles of a viewer in contemporary art exhibitions and family workshops are studied. One student wants to develop postmodern art in East Africa through the use of material culture. Postmodern breaking of boundaries continues in studies about aesthetic preferences in design education and about the identities of craft teacher students. Bridges between arts and crafts are discussed in a study about artefacts as tools of being in the world. Also, curricula for design education and international cooperation of vocational craft education are studied.

Multicultural issues continue to be the area of several studies in progress. A student from Turkey is asking how architectural planning of Helsinki takes the cultural diversity of people’s everyday life and needs into account. The meaning of pre-defi ned form as a tool for skill and character develop-ment in studying traditional Japanese arts is studied from a Finnish per-spective. In her case study, another Finnish woman studies the frontiers of her identities and diff erently signifying aesthetic processes in Africa and Finland. One research project in progress is entitled “The signifi cant other: postcolonial transgression”. Gender issues are focused on in a study about art education and boys. The taboos of sexual divergences in art education are approached in a comparative study of the themes of young people’s visual expression in Finland and Estonia. A doctoral student looks at masculinity in painting while another one focuses on femininity in women’s three-dimen-sional works.

School practices seem to have a minor role in the Finnish research in art education in progress. Strategies for integration are approached through musical means in upper secondary school art education and dialogical forms of interaction in art learning in a folk high school are studied. The subject of one doctoral study is portfolio assessment at the comprehensive level. Obvious and explicit connections to school practices are evident in a his-torical study about the elementary school trainee teachers’ art education in the years 1900–1940, and in a thesis about an artist/teacher Aleksanteri Ahola-Valo. Autobiographical narratives and life history interviews are used in a study about Finnish art teachers’ professional identity. Another study is focusing on the art teachers’ conceptions of art.



In this article, I have loosely applied Lindström’s categorization of the knowledge base of research in visual arts education. From the Finnish point of view, the fi rst methodological refi nement needed in Lindström’s rough categorization of research approaches (see Figure 2 above) is the subtitle arts-based research. This is very clear especially when we look at the studies in progress at the University of Art and Design Helsinki (see www.uiah.fi ). At least six dissertations in progress belong to the subcategory artists as researchers of their own work. Also, there are some art educational projects in progress that are executed by artists as researchers. In these studies like in other artists’ projects, research results are introduced in art exhibitions. This has been the case for example in the baking performances realized with children in South Africa and Finland. Children’s artwork also becomes part of the teacher/researcher’s art production in a study where students’ visual interpretations of Brueghel’s paintings are used as a basis for the artist’s own artwork.

Comments on the Finnish bibliographyIt is possible to characterize the research done at the School of Art Edu-cation at the University of Art and Design Helsinki as artistic research defi ned by identity issues, seen from a multicultural perspective in its broad meaning. From the point of view of education, research in art education has very much followed the constructivist mainstream of Finnish educational research with some ideas of critical pedagogy. At the University of Lapland, several environmental and community-based art education projects have been conducted together with people living in the actual site of the project and art education students, schools and other institutions. These projects carried out in the northern socio-cultural environment have usually been documented and some feedback is collected, but the “results” of these re-searches-in-action have not always been consistently reported and the arts-based methods used in them are seldom explicated. Because of the artistic nature of the projects, they have not been documented in a manner that meets the requirements of a research report. This is one of the problematic issues of artistic inquiry and arts-informed research: because their results do not always meet the rhetoric of the mainstream research community they often remain unnoticed.

Some earlier research in the fi eld deals with the same problematic issues. For instance, some of the pioneers of Finnish research in art education are not included in the lists of research reports because their writings do not belong to the genre of academic writing. However, for example Antero



Salminen’s (2005) texts about perception and artistic development and Maria Laukka’s (2003) research of child culture, especially of illustrations in children’s books, have been important for the Finnish research in art edu-cation. The experimental work done in art schools for children and youth has also been infl uential. This has been going on since the end of the 1980s, when the system was established (see Hassi et al., 1998). Very few projects of these schools and those executed in cultural centres for children have been documented (see Granö et al., 2006). It is sometimes diffi cult to see the boundary between investigative journalism, art criticism, essayist writing and arts-based research. I hope that the classifi cation of Finnish research bibliography does justice to various forms and levels of research reporting, also beyond the established, authorized system.

A number of research articles are published in Finnish professional journals. The Association of Art Teachers is the oldest professional association in Fin-land and it has been publishing the journal Stylus for a hundred years now. Some of the articles are written in Swedish, the second offi cial language of Finland. During its history, the articles in the journal have included discus-sions about the foundations and place of art education in our country. The majority of articles in the Stylus discuss the fi eld using practical examples. Projects executed in museums and other cultural institutions are introduced too. The journal also includes interviews, book reviews and reports from international congresses. Only recently have more research-based articles been published; research done in art education departments in Helsinki and Rovaniemi has been introduced in special editions by the universities. Some earlier research articles in art education have been published in the Journal of Educational Research Association Kasvatus and in the Journal of Youth Research Nuorisotutkimus.

Due to their practical nature, only a few articles in the presently bian-nual Stylus have been included in the Finnish bibliography. Several research articles on the list are from the research journal Synnyt/Origins published four times a year on the Internet by the School of Art Education at the UIAH (http://arted.uiah.fi /synnyt/indexeng.html). The principal writers and target group of Origins are doctoral students in art education, but the aim of the journal is to act as a bridge between academic research and art educational practices. However, the area of discussion in the journal has broadened from visual arts to other art forms like theatre and literature, often having an art theoretical and philosophical emphasis. Doctoral research in progress is introduced in the Origins (some of it written in English), which also makes it a meeting point of Finnish and foreign doctoral students, especially those connected to the BaltArt network.



The selection and categorization of articles and reports in the Finnish list of research in art education are of course my personal choices, although I have tried to be objective in the sense that an invitation to send information about their studies was sent to all Finnish art educators working at univer-sity level. One of the choices I made was to exclude from my list all research related to theory and history of art, media and design done outside art univer-sities. Research in media education is included only if it relates directly to the categories of picture analysis and visual culture.

My position as a writer of this article is that of an art teacher and re-searcher. The practice of art making forms the background of my profes-sional identity. After teaching art at secondary and upper secondary levels I have been working 17 years as a lecturer and researcher at the School of Art Education at the UIAH. The last six years at the University of Turku have turned my attention to the student classroom teachers’ art education, even though my emphasis still is on the substance of visual arts. In a sense this article is a memo or a narrative of a person who has belonged to the Finnish community of research in art education as long as it has existed and who is curious to see what the future will bring.

References Bardy, Marjatta (Ed.). (1998). Taide tiedon lähteenä (Art as a source of knowledge). Helsinki, Fin.: Stakes/Atena.

Barone, Tom (2006). Arts-based educational research then, now, and later. Studies in Art Education 48(1), pp. 4-8.

Barone, Tom & Eisner, Elliot (1997). Arts-based educational research. In R.M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary

methods for research in education. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research association.

Bresler, Liora (Ed.). (2007). International handbook of research in arts education. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Day, Michael & Eisner, Elliot (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of art education research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Diamond, Patrick C.T. & Mullen, Carol A. (Eds.). (1999). The postmodern educator: Arts-based inquiries and

teacher development. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Eisner, Elliot (1991). The enlightened eye. Qualitatative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New

York, NY: Macmillan.

Eskola, Taneli 1997. Water lilies and wings of steel. Interpreting change in the photographic imagery of Aulanko

Park. Publication Series of University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH A 19. Helsinki, Fin.: University

of Art and Design.

Granö, Päivi, Korkeakoski, Esko, & Laukka, Maria (Eds.). (2006). Taikalamppujen valossa. Lastenkulttuurikes-

kusten arviointi (In the light of magical lamps. Evaluation of cultural centres for children). Committee

report 25/2006. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education.

Habermas, Jurgen (1971). Theory and practice. Boston, Mass.: Viking.

Hassi, Marjatta, Heinimaa, Elisse, & Laukkarinen, Sirkka (1998). Raportti työpajaopetuksen järjestämisestä

lasten ja nuorten kuvataidekouluissa 1996–1998 (Report of workshops in art schools for children and youth

years 1996–1998). Helsinki, Fin.: The Association of Art Schools for Children and Youth in Finland.



Hosia, Ulla (1988). Kuvaamataidon oppimistoiminta. Teoreettisen mallin muodostaminen kuvaamataidon oppimis-

prosessista (Learning activity in visual arts. Towards a theoretical model of the learning process in visual

arts). Publication Series of Department of Art Education, 1. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Kunstpædagogisk forskning og formidling i Norden 1995–2004 (Nordic research in visual

arts education in museums and galleries 1995–2004). Skärhamn, Sw.: The Nordic Watercolor Museum.

Kantonen, Lea & Kantonen, Pekka (1999). The tent – a book of travels. Publication Series of University of Art

and Design Helsinki UIAH A 25. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Kiljunen, Satu & Hannula, Mika (Eds.). (2002). Artistic research. Helsinki, Fin.: Academy of Fine Arts.

Krappala, Mari (1999). Burning (of) the ethics of the passions. Contemporary art as a process. Publication Series

of University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH A 27. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientifi c revolutions. Chicago, Ill:University of Chicago Press.

Kuosmanen, Sinikka (1994). Taidetarina. Kasvatustieteellinen tutkielma varhaislapsuuden taidekasvatuksesta

(The art story. A pedagogical study on early childhood art education). Faculty of Education, Unpublished

licentiate thesis. University of Helsinki, Fin.

Lather, Patti (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory

Into Practice 31(2), pp. 87-99.

Laukka, Maria (2003). Suomalaisen lastenkirjankuvituksen kehitys (The development of illustrations in

children’s books in Finland). In L. Huhtala, K. Grünn, I. Loivamaa, & M. Laukka (Eds.), Pieni suuri maailma.

Suomalaisen lasten – ja nuortenkirjallisuuden historia (pp. 89-136). Helsinki, Fin.: Tammi.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (1998). Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review. Stockholm

Library of Curriculum Studies 2. Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (2000). The cultural context. Comparative studies of art education and children’s drawings.

Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Mantere, Meri-Helga (1991). Mielen kuvat. Kuvallinen ilmaisu terapeuttisessa kontekstissa (Images of the mind.

Visual expression in a therapeutic context). Publication Series of the University of Art and Design Helsinki

UIAH A 9. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Mantere, Meri-Helga (Ed.). (1995). Maan kuva. Kirjoituksia taiteeseen perustuvasta ympäristökasvatuksesta

(Image of the earth. Writings about environmental education in visual art). Publication Series of the

University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Ovaska-Airasmaa, Mirja (1992). Kuvallinen taidekasvatus päivähoitotoiminnassa. Teoriataustaa ja käytännön

johtopäätöksiä lapsen kuvantekemisestä ja sen ohjaamisesta (Visual art education in day-care. Theoretical back-

ground and practical conclusions from children’s picture making and its guidance). Publication Series of

Department of Art Education, 3. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (1998). Refl ections on the art education history. In L. Lindström (Ed.), Nordic visual arts

research. A theoretical and methodological review. Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies 2. Stockholm

Institute of Education Press, 63-67.

Puurula, Arja (Ed.). (1998). Taito- ja taideaineiden opetuksen integrointi. Kokemuksia, käytäntöjä, teoriaa

(Integrating arts and skills subjects. Experiences, practices, theory). Studia Pedagogica 17. University of

Helsinki, Fin.



Rusanen, Sinikka (2007). Taidekasvattajaksi varhaiskasvatukseen. Kuvataiteen opintojen kehittäminen lastentarhan-

opettajien koulutuksessa (Constructing the professional identity of an art educator. A research project to

develop studies in visual art in kindergarten teachers’ education). Publication Series of University of Art

and Design Helsinki UIAH A 77. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Räsänen, Marjo (1993). Kuvasta kokemukseksi. Kokemuksellinen oppiminen taiteen tarkastelussa (From image to

experience. Experiential learning in art exploration). Publication Series of Department of Art Education,

4. Helsinki, Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta (1993). Lapsi taiteen tulkitsijana (Child as an art interpreter). Research Reports of the

Institute for Educational Research. University of Jyväskylä, Fin.

Salminen, Antero (2005). Pääjalkainen. Kuva ja havainto (Cephalopod. Image and observation). (Ed. I. Koskinen)

Publication Series of University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH B 77. Helsinki.

Sava, Inkeri (1981). Peruskoulun ala-asteen kuvaamataidon kirjoitetun opetussuunnitelman arvotaustasta. Kuvaus

ja arviointia (On the underlying values of the written curriculum for visual arts education in Finland.

Description and evaluation). Research Reports of the Department of Education 93. University of Helsinki,

Fin.

Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (2001). Taikomo-projektin päättyessä. Monikulttuurisuudesta matkalla minuuteen (Conclusing

the Taikomo-project. Travelling from multiculturalism to self). Publication Series of the Education

Department A 6. City of Helsinki, Fin.

Seitamaa-Oravala, Pirkko (1990). Kuviot kuvan takana: kuvaskeemoista kuvauskeinoihin. Historiallisesta orien-

taatiosta kognitiiviseen näkökulmaan kuvaamataidon opetuksessa (Figures behind the picture: from picture

schemata to ways of making pictures). Publication Series of Department of Art Education, 2. Helsinki,

Fin.: University of Art and Design.

Sullivan, Graeme (2005). Art practice as research. Inquiry in the visual arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tuominen, Marja & Kurki, Eeva (Eds.). (2001). Ohjaus ja arviointi taidealojen jatkotutkintojen opinnäytteissä

(Guidance and assessment of postgraduate studies in art universities). Publication Series of the Faculty of

Art and Design C 23. Rovaniemi, Fin.: University of Lapland.

Varto, Juha, Saarnivaara, Marjatta, & Tervahattu, Heikki (Eds.). (2003). Kohtaamisia taiteen ja tutkimuksen

maastoissa (Encounters in the terrains of art and research). Hamina, Fin.: Akatiimi.

Varto, Juha (1996). Taidepedagogiikan fi losofi sista perusteista (Philosophical foundations of art pedagogy).

Tiedepolitiikka 1/96, 57.

Varto, Juha (2000). Uutta tietoa. Värityskirja tieteen fi losofi aan (New knowledge. A colouring book for the

philosophy of science). Tampere University Press, Fin.

Varto, Juha (2003). Kuvakieltokulttuurin kuvamaailma ja arjen moraali (The image world of an iconoclastic

culture and everyday morals). Niin&näin 2/03, pp. 50-53.



MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION

Themes in Icelandic Studies 1995–2007

Rósa Kristín Júlíusdóttir

IntroductionArt education has changed in recent years in Iceland, especially with the new national curriculum that came into use in 1999. Visual art at the pri-mary school level is defi ned with other art subjects i.e. music, drama and dance under one heading Art disciplines, and at the upper secondary school level design has been made a special discipline. The main emphasis in this curriculum is in the spirit of discipline-based art education although accor-ding to Helgadóttir (2000) not identical to Discipline Based Art Education (DBAE) as described in Dobbs’ guide to DBAE (1998). By this she is referring to diff erent representation of the four foundational disciplines of art rather than diff erences in the basic idea (ideology). Instead of placing emphasis on the four foundational disciplines of art; art-making, art criticism, art his-tory, and aesthetics the emphasis is put on the learning processes of the art disciplines. Visual arts is a compulsory discipline in grades 1 through 8 and elective (choice) in grades 9 and 10. There are four 40 minute lessons each week divided between visual arts and music through the fi rst 8 grades. To begin study in a fi ne arts programme in upper secondary school a student must have achieved a specifi c reference grade in Icelandic and mathematics and have studied art in compulsory school or in a special art school.

Shifts in focus have been suggested in art education curricula based on the fact that in an information society students have access to a myriad of pieces of knowledge and schools should off er students ways to put the pieces together in a meaningful whole. This includes more balance between creation, interpretation and expression on the one hand and perception, analysis (problem solving) and evaluation on the other (National Curri-culum, 1999). It is diffi cult to say how much debate on the subject there has been. It has taken place to some extent among elementary school art


teachers and teachers of art education. The role of research however is still at a minimum and it may be argued that it needs to be emphasized more decisively (Júlíusdóttir, 2003).

Visual arts education and the Icelandic educational systemThe National Curriculum Guides for Compulsory and Upper Secondary School from 1999 was said to have marked a new chapter in the history of education in Iceland. Curriculum development work was carried out con-currently for pre-school, compulsory school and upper secondary school. Compulsory school level covers a period of ten years and The National Curriculum Guide describes the main emphasis in education of children and youth of compulsory school age (6–16). Most Icelandic children attend pre-school for some years before starting compulsory school. Pre-school or leikskóli which means play-school prepares children for formal schooling through play and other organized educational activities including much emphasis on art and music.

It is stated in The National Curriculum Guide (1999) that general educa-tion must off er opportunities for artistic instruction. Studies in the visual arts and music lay the foundation for creative expression and the ability to enjoy the arts and culture. Most students begin their upper secondary school immediately after fi nishing compulsory school. Students have a variety of options but to be admitted to a specifi c programme they must fulfi l the requirement for preparatory study. In grade 9 and 10 students have the option of choosing electives (up to one-third of their instructional hours) as direct preparations for artistic study, or other study paths they intend to follow, or to widen their educational scope and experience before the specialization of upper secondary school takes over.

Upper secondary school education in Iceland covers 2, 3 or 4 years of study. It can roughly be divided into vocational and general education that interestingly is called book learning or theoretical studies. To begin study in a visual arts programme, the student must have a specifi c reference grade in Icelandic and mathematics, and have studied visual arts in compulsory school or in a special school with satisfactory results in the view of the accepting school, or demonstrated in another manner that this study is sui-table for her/him (The National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory School 2004, 13). Art learning is a three year programme and its objective is to pre-pare students for further study in the arts at a university level or in other related special schools. In order to be able to pursue other university studies



the art student must add another year of “book learning”. There are four art learning programmes: visual art, design, dance and music. Design has three defi ned areas, multi-media design, general design and textile design. All students in upper secondary schools in Iceland have the choice of diverse art courses as electives (up to 24 units – i.e. 17 % of the units required for matriculation exams).

A review of the National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory School 1999 has been performed since 2005 and a new curriculum guide took eff ect on August 1st 2007. The most noticeable change regarding the arts seems to be the change of the word/concept visual art (myndlist) back to image edu-cation/imaging skills (myndmennt), the name fi rst used in the curriculum guide from 1977, at which time it replaced the word drawing. In 1999 the word myndlist replaced it, but this time we are back to myndmennt [image education]! These words might describe change in emphasis. Myndmennt puts emphasis on competence in visual literacy while myndlist refers to the discipline visual art with its whole spectrum i.e. creation, historical con-text, aesthetic and evaluation (Ásthildur Björg Jónsdóttir, 2003). However the rationale for the change in the curriculum is said to be purely to keep the conformity with the other art subjects’ names: tónmennt/music, textíl-mennt/textile, myndmennt/visual art. So far there has been no open discussion about this among the teachers.

As in the curriculum guide from 1999, the art spectrum here (2007) in-cludes fi ve art disciplines: visual art, textile art, music, dance and drama. In compulsory school the fi rst three are independent mandatory subjects during the fi rst eight school years but elective in grades 9 and 10. Dance and drama are integrated with other subjects or organized as short courses and electives. The curriculum guide suggests minimum hours allotted to the arts (2x40 minutes per week in visual art) but individual schools have the freedom to organize their teaching in a diff erent manner. Individual school curricula must show implementation of their teaching in the arts.

The changes in the newly reviewed National Curriculum Guide are likely to eff ect art education in compulsory schools in Iceland in some ways (and possibly already have done so). There are no predetermined classroom hours and no criterion schedule. Teaching arrangements are the responsibility of individual schools including teaching the art subjects in a so-called carousel manner8 even though that might result in fewer lessons per pupil per year!

8 By carousel manner it is meant that each art subject might be taught every day for two or more consecutive weeks to be followed by the same for the next art subject and so on, instead of the 2x40 minutes per week throughout the school year. This is pretty much in the hands of the head master of the school and often results in fewer hours for art than the allotted minimum.



Teacher training and art teacher educationThere are various ways to receive teacher training in Iceland. The Iceland University of Education was founded in 1908 as the Teachers’ College of Iceland and has now operated at the university level for 30 years. It off ers undergraduate studies in which students can earn a B.A., B.S., or B.Ed. de-gree (180 ECTS), Diploma (90 ECTS) and post-degree, Teacher Certifi ca-tion programme. At the graduate level students can earn a Diploma in Edu-cation (30-60 ECTS), M.Ed. degree (120 ECTS), and since 2001 a doctoral programme (180 ECTS). The same education as mentioned above, except for the doctoral programme, is available at the Faculty of Education at the University of Akureyri.

When the Iceland Academy of Arts was founded in 1999, the oldest insti-tution of art in this country The Art and Craft College of Iceland was merged with it and became the department of art and design of the Academy. The College of Art and Craft was founded in 1939 as the School of Craft and later became the College of Art and Craft. The school had an important role as a school of visual art, craft and design as well as an institute of teaching. The man whose infl uence on art and craft education was to be enduring was the founder of the College of Crafts Lúðvíg Guðmundsson. Together with Kurt Zier, whom he recruited as head teacher of this new school, they had enor-mous infl uence on the development of art and craft education in Iceland (Helgadóttir, 1997:28). A department of art was added to the school in 1942 which trained those who wanted to be artists and art teachers side by side (p. 29). This might be seen as an attempt to combine content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge comparable to Lee Shulman’s defi nition of pedagogical content knowledge (see the fi rst chapter in this publication). The question is which one of our diff erent ways to educate art teachers/educators is most likely to achieve the right balance in the knowledge base of art education.

Specially educated art teachers teach visual art for the most parts both in compulsory school and upper secondary school. Although recently it has become more prevalent that classroom teachers teach visual art in the lower grades in primary school (1–4). Art teachers in upper secondary school ge-nerally hold a degree in visual art or design, often an MFA degree as well as post-degree teacher certifi cation. Visual art teachers at the compulsory school level on the other hand more often hold an ordinary teachers’ degree with 30 elective credits (60ECTS) in art.

The older and more experienced art teachers of today received their edu-cation at The Art and Craft College of Iceland. The school educated “dra-wing teachers” in Iceland until the year 1990. The Iceland Academy of the



Arts now educates art specialists and at the Iceland University of Education students can choose art as an additional specialty. The preparation of these groups for their occupation is quite diff erent. Teachers from the latter receive their education as classroom teachers with visual art as a specialty. Those who receive their education at the Iceland Academy of Arts receive a special education in art pedagogy and didactics and must have a prior degree from an art institution or art university. Whereas at the Iceland University of Education students are not required to have any prior art knowledge except from compulsory school.

The art teacher education programmes in Iceland basically build upon two diff erent traditions. The arts based teacher education that has it roots at the Art and Craft College of Iceland and the general teacher education based at the Teachers’ College of Iceland with some specialization in visual art. As Guðrún Helgadóttir and others pointed out in 1982 the challenge of these schools should have been to combine their resources (1982: 94). In light of Shulman’s concept pedagogical content knowledge that refers to the synthesis (fusion) of content knowledge in the discipline and pedagogical knowledge and skills (see Lindström m’s fi rst chapter above), it would have been the ideal choice. The closest we can come to this today is the educa-tion of art teachers at the Iceland Academy of the Arts in Reykjavík. After receiving a degree in visual arts and/or design the students can add one or two years (60 ECTS) of education (art pedagogy and didactics) and receive a postgraduate degree teacher certifi cate.

It must be noted that at the M.Ed. level there are new specialty programmes in the making at both teachers’ universities. At The Iceland University of Education: Art, culture and museum education is a new specialty programme in education studies that includes theoretical studies in visual art. Several artists – art teachers have commenced their master’s studies at the faculty of education at the University of Akureyri where they can direct their spe-cialty towards art education. Hopefully, more academic research in art edu-cation will follow.

Postgraduate studies in visual arts education in IcelandThe fi rst Icelander (and only one so far) to be awarded her doctorate de-gree in art and craft education is Guðrún Helgadóttir. In 1997 she received a doctoral degree for her dissertation Icelandic craft teachers’ curriculum identity as refl ected in life histories from the University of British Columbia. Helgadóttir has played a key role in the fi eld of art and craft education in Iceland, including research in the fi eld. She was chairman of the review



committee for The National Curriculum Guides in 1999. Helgadóttir was also an advocate for DBAE in Iceland and among those preparing a confe-rence on art education and school development in 1998 with Elliot Eisner as key note speaker. She was assistant principal 1996–1997 and then principal of The Art and Craft College of Iceland 1998–1999, when the college mer-ged with The School of Music and The School of Drama to form the Iceland Academy of the Arts. When it comes to teacher training in the visual arts, Helgadóttir has been primus motor in developing the post-baccalaureate diploma for teachers in arts education. This programme was situated at The Art and Craft College (later The Iceland Academy of Arts) from 1995 until 2003, where she led the curriculum development besides teaching many of the courses. Helgadóttir has published research articles in journals abroad and here in Iceland, written chapters in edited books as well as giving a multitude of lectures on art and craft education at various levels in the fi eld of education. The characteristic of Helgadóttir’s research lies in creating a composite view of identity through ethnographic and historical methods, especially oral history (Guðrún Helgadóttir, 2001a; 2001b). Her research also includes curriculum study, for instance in her doctoral thesis (Guðrún Helgadóttir, 1997a; 1997b; 1995). Gender issues are a focus in her studies as is feminism and other postmodern phenomena (Guðrún Helgadóttir, 1991; 1993; 1994; 2001c). She has published articles on assessment and evaluation, as well as instructional methods (2003a & b). Helgadóttir has over the past decade turned her attention to informal education and cultural studies, par-ticularly cultural heritage in the contemporary context of tourism (2005; 2006a; b; c, and d).

Master’s theses since 1986Two Icelanders received their M.Ed., with an emphasis on art education, before the turn of the century. Kristín Hildur Ólafsdóttir received her M.Ed. degree from the University of Missouri – Columbia in 1986 in Curriculum and Instruction in Art Education. In 1989 Guðrún Helgadóttir completed her master’s education from the University of British Columbia. She stu-died the attitudes of Icelandic art and craft teachers toward curriculum and practice in their subject area (Guðrún Helgadóttir, 1989). The fi rst Icelandic master’s degree in visual arts education was awarded in 2000 from the Ice-land University of Education. Before that a few artists and art teachers did receive their master’s education at various universities in the United States, Canada and Sweden. In the new millennium there has been a promising in-crease of visual arts teachers who have been awarded their master’s degrees,



and several more will receive their degrees before the end of 2007. At the University of Akureyri, the faculty of education, fi ve visual arts teachers and one textile teacher are enrolled in master’s education and at The Iceland University of Education there is another handful.

The Icelandic master’s theses are generally elaborate and make up the core of Icelandic research in visual arts education. Like in Norway the M.A.–M.Ed. candidates in Iceland need to give an oral defence of their theses. Loo-king at the titles of the theses, the selection of themes seem rather broad, although a certain trend towards curriculum studies is noticeable as well as the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in art education. The status of art teaching in Icelandic compulsory schooling at the turn of the millennium is the undertaking in Jóhanna Ingimarsdóttir’s (2000) research. She investigated which aspects teachers emphasized with respect to curricula as well as the development of the Icelandic curriculum until the present day. In 2001 Guðrún Hannele Henttinen defended her the-ses Textílmennt með augum textílkennarans in which she studies the work of textile teachers from their experiences and their point of view. Rósa Kristín Júlíusdóttir used phenomenological and interpretive qualitative methods to examine students’ perceptions of the role of art and art making in their every day lives. In her study (2003) she focused on the meanings young people attach to this role and how narrative identity is constructed by students’ tales of their art works. Ásthildur Björg Jónsdóttir (2003) combined making an interactive web site for children Listavefur krakka and a theoretical writ-ten part (thesis). The web site is in concordance with the objectives in The National Curriculum Guide (1999), i.e. with an emphasis on communica-ting art history, aesthetics and art criticism. Information about Icelandic artists and their work is also available on the web site. This spring Aðalbjörg Ólafsdóttir (2007) defended her theses where ICT in art education is the focus. Aðalbjörg studied how art educators use ICT in light of government policy formulation as it is presented in the National Curriculum Guide. Two master’s degrees in museum education have already been defended in 2007. In her theses Svala Jónsdóttir reveals an insight into art viewing with children: To look and see. She discusses historical and cultural infl uences on the interaction as well as diff erent theories. Together with the thesis, Svala presents a multimedia interactive cd-rom, an exciting learning environment which off ers children active participation and opportunities for interpre-tation and creation. Alma Dís Kristinsdóttir discusses museum education and families in her theses Learning moments: Museum education and families. It is an extensive fi eld research of 25 museum visits in two rounds, from August 2005 to June 2006. In the latter round the participants were given a



prototype of the so-called MuseumBelt©, especially made for this study. The MuseumBelt© includes selected learning tools such as a 16 card deck Muse-umCards© designed by the researcher as one of the study’s learning tools.

Studies at the postgraduate level in visual arts education have been for-mally possible at the Iceland University of Education, the Iceland University and the University of Akureyri for several years now. During the years this report is supposed to cover, seven M.Ed. theses have been defended, inclu-ding three in the spring of 2007. None of these universities, however, has a faculty of visual arts and the students have been enrolled in the faculty of education. As has been stated before, the Iceland Academy of the Arts has a Department of Art Education. The studies are not at the postgraduate level yet but lead to a post-baccalaureate diploma for teachers in art education.

At the Iceland University of Education teachers of art education are prac-ticing artists as well as teachers (lecturers and docents, assistant and asso-ciate professors). Their research has been arts-based practice and like other artists’ projects the results and the research processes are introduced in art exhibitions and without a written theoretical part. Neither have they been documented in a manner that meets the requirements of a research report or writing that can be classifi ed as academic writing. Although the trend is towards the recognition of arts-based research in the Eisnerian-style (as Räsänen points out in her national report, above), this has resulted in very little written research in art education in Iceland by the staff at the uni-versities. It will be a challenge to combine the visual (art making) and the written refl ection. As an artist, a researcher and a teacher, I would like to witness the birth of a community of research in art education where visual and text-based research presentations support each other side by side but not necessarily always together. As has been mentioned, and as this chapter indicates, research in visual arts education in Iceland needs augmentation in every aspect and especially postgraduate studies.

Icelandic research in visual arts education – trends and themesThere is no special research unit (establishment) for visual arts education in Iceland. Most of the research in art education has been conducted in the three universities that have departments of education and pedagogy: The Iceland University of Education, The University of Akureyri and The University of Iceland. This is refl ected to a certain extent in the approaches taken by the researchers. More often these have their roots in the concepts to the right-hand side of Lars Lindström’s diagram (Figure 2, above). Yet, the small but growing fi eld of research in visual arts education in Iceland



appears to touch down widely in the knowledge base of visual arts education which Lindström displays.

It may be diffi cult to defi ne the trends and themes (threads) in the small but important tapestry that has been woven with Icelandic research in vi-sual arts education during the last ten years. Most of the studies connect in one way or another to curriculum study in art education. Some are technology-related while others use narrative approaches. It is clear that in more studies the focus is on how art education is conducted rather than on how students experience it, i.e. the art teacher’s side is examined. Although Rósa Kristín Júlíusdóttir’s (2003) research about the role of art making in everyday life is student oriented. The emphasis in visual arts education in Iceland is still to a certain extent on the design process and on the promotion of creativity. In her research project on art teaching in Icelandic compulsory schooling Jóhanna Þórunn Ingimarsdóttir (2000) argues that art teachers think the best way to get their ideas across is for students to learn as many methods as possible to express their images and to become acquainted with as many types of materials as possible.

Skills and procedures in making art have not played a large role in the research in visual arts education within the universities in Iceland. The Reykjavík School of Visual Art (RSVA) is a non-profi t organization operated by artists. It was founded in 1947 and has been recognized since the year 2000 by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture as a private school at the upper secondary level. It also provides professional art education for children and youth of primary school age based upon an agreement with the Reykjavík City Education Service Centre. The faculty includes artists and designers who are selected as teachers on the basis of their education and artistic career. Most have received their master’s degree in visual art, de-sign or architecture as well as having completed pedagogy to receive a Post Graduate Certifi cate of Education. Maureen Michael (2005), an educational researcher, calls them “pedagogical artists” as they have commitments to creative practice and facilitate learning experiences for others.

It can be argued that the experimental work, development projects and research in visual arts education that take place within this school are signi-fi cant for the Icelandic research in art education. Since 1999 several research projects have been carried out or are underway at RSVA. These projects have involved collaboration with pre-schools in Reykjavík as well as the compul-sory schools. Research reports have been made by lecturers at both of the teacher training universities, and have most often been conducted in a manner that meets the requirements of an academic research report.



If there is a continuous thread that runs through these research projects it is learning through the visual arts, not just about them. Art Camp in Art School builds on the objective to provide a greater number of primary school child-ren the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the studies and working environment characteristic of art school workshops. The research carried out within the school is for the most part arts- or practice-based research. These projects have been carefully documented and reported in an acade-mic manner and as such they off er a valuable contribution to the discourse of innovative education where art practice has high esteem.

The largest research undertaking by RSVA so far is Project KNOWHOW (www.knowhow.is) which was initiated by the school as a research pro-ject with the aim of documenting the nature of making integrated learning and teaching, and of sharing this method with other practitioners in the fi eld of education. Ethnographic research methods have been applied. The research uses a multi-site case study method involving tutors and students of ceramics departments in six European Art Institutes of Further and Higher Education. The research is designed to gather a range of perceptions on the learning, teaching and making interface. The project undertakes an audit of methodologies to uncover knowledge about non-textual teaching methods in art education. Practitioners within the fi eld of art and design education are often convinced of the importance of practical activity to the learning-experiences of their students, yet there is little documented analy-sis of the relationship between learning, teaching and making.

Practice may be crucial in which understanding is tested or in which commitment is affi rmed, it’s the pivot point, one might argue, around which most of education revolves (Shulman, 2002). This research project hopes to articulate tacit understandings of learning and teaching within studio contexts.

Looking ahead – challengesAs stated before, the role of research in art education needs to be emphasized more decisively in Iceland. Looking ahead, the number of master’s thesis rooted in the fi eld of art education, will increase. Although these make up a substantial part of the Icelandic research in art education, the authors are mostly linked to the academic community (universities) during their edu-cation. The need to establish a permanent research community or a forum for researchers in the fi eld seems self-evident.



In spite of the novelty and small dimensions of research in visual arts edu-cation in Iceland, the road ahead looks promising. The number of master’s students with emphasis on art education is on the rise and along with them hopefully new research topics. Visual culture and multicultural issues have not been approached but it is now the undertaking in one of the master’s thesis in progress. Árdís Olgeirsdóttir has been looking at a way of teaching Icelandic to immigrant children and youth through art refl ected from their own perspective, especially using new media, i.e. internet, video cameras and mobile phones.

The research interests among the Icelandic researchers, most of whom are master’s students, cover a reasonably broad range of topics in spite of its limited size. The development and implementation of curricula seems to be interwoven in much of the research. Björg Árnadóttir (2007) received her master’s degree from the Iceland University. In her study she explores the curriculum and pedagogy used in the department of visual arts at the Iceland Academy of Arts (2007). Another thesis that is underway is investigating the signifi cance of art education in upper secondary education. The focus is on the students, their identity and participation in a democratic society. Yet another study in progress has its roots in aesthetic experience and young child-ren with consideration to the following: how do visits to art museums, art making and philosophical discussions infl uence the aesthetic experience of young children? The methodological approach to this research is qualitative observation, documentation and participation study. The researcher takes part in the whole process i.e. the museum visits, the art making and the philosophical discussion. This research might intersect with other Nordic projects in museums and galleries (see also Illeris, 2004).

The spectrum of Icelandic researchers in visual arts education contains fi rst and foremost artists and art teachers who seldom look upon themselves as scholars, for instance in the same sense as historians ordinarily do. This seems natural in light of what has been shown in this chapter, with regards to the need for researchers with a doctorate degree. It is diffi cult to say how to approach this dilemma. We are at the onset of developing master’s courses in art education. To develop doctoral courses of our own may be a long term dream. In the meantime we can seek cooperation with universities and col-leges in neighbouring countries. There is a movement to develop research at the doctoral level in Iceland. All the universities have put emphasis on increasing their number of teachers with doctoral degrees and at the Ice-landic University of Education a doctoral programme in education has been off ered since 2001. Hopefully we will not have to wait too long for another doctor of visual arts education.



Looking towards the future the challenges are many, but they are there to be tackled. Opening up spaces for artist-researcher-teacher in a/r/tography as Rita Irwin (2004) conceptualizes it, would seem like an exciting option, especially looking at the growth of arts-based research methods during the last decade (Irwin, 2004). Arts-emphasized theses have been among those defended in Iceland although with a theoretical part. In the near future our artists/teachers will hopefully also take on the role of researchers who welcome the opportunity to experiment with diff erent ways of collecting, presenting and representing research and inquiry (Irwing, 2004).

Comments on the list of Icelandic publicationsThe Icelandic list of publications refl ects the relatively new and small fi eld of visual arts education research in Iceland. I have taken the liberty to in-clude writings other than research based publications and by doing so ma-king this a rather comprehensive overview of publications in the fi eld. The Icelandic publication list is thus divided into six parts: Doctoral theses / master’s theses / books / chapters / articles and reports. The M.Ed. theses are generally not published for sale; they are only published in small num-bers for the libraries. The books on the list have been published in Iceland and are written by artists/art teachers. They are not research based texts in the academic sense but are valuable contributions to art education. On the other hand both chapters and articles represent art education research and therefore belong to research based publications.

There are no research networks or journals solely for visual art education in Iceland. The few art education related research articles that have been published have either been done so in the peer reviewed educational journals or in Nordic or international journals. The Network for Nordic Researchers in Visual Arts Education (NetNoRVAE) mentioned in the Norwegian chapter in this publication (Liv Merete Nielsen) could provide a valuable stepping stone for Icelandic researchers into Nordic cooperation in the fi eld.

The selection of material presented in this chapter and in the publica-tion list are my personal choices, yet with regards to the criteria given. To identify and collect Icelandic studies in visual arts education has been a pioneering and rewarding job for me and hopefully just the beginning of something larger. I have walked somewhat outside the path set for this but the circumstances in the fi eld call for this. Hopefully, when the next ten years of Icelandic research in visual arts education will be presented many new and colourful threads will have been woven into the tapestry.



References

Dobbs, Stephen M. (1998). Learning in and through art: a guide to discipline-based art education.

Los Angeles: The Getty Education Institute for the Arts.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1982). Í helgreipum bóknámsrembunnar [In the grip of booklearning]. Um

þróun og stöðu mynd – og handmenntakennslu í íslenskum skyldunámsskólum. Reykjavík:

The Iceland University of Education. (Unpublished Term paper).

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1991) Gender issues in Art Education: A commentary. Studies in Art

Education 32(4), pp. 248-249.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1993). Feminism and Feminisms: The prospect of censorship. Journal of

Social Theory in Art Education (13), pp. 124-130.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1994). Book review of Multicultural Celebrations. The paintings of Betty

LaDuke 1972-1992. By Gloria Feman Orenstein. Canadian Review of Art Education 21(1), pp. 52-55.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1995) In the family? The interrelationship of art and craft teachers. Working

papers in Art Education (13), pp. 109-114.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1997a). Icelandic craft teachers’ curriculum identity as refl ected in life histories.

Vancouver, Can.: The University of British Columbia. (Diss.)

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1997b). Samkennsla kynjanna í hannyrðum og smíði: Skref í jafnrét-

tisátt? [The co-education of genders in crafts: A step in the right direction?]. In Helga Kress

& Rannveig Traustadóttir (Eds.), Íslenskar kvennarannsóknir, (pp. 196-205). Háskóli Íslands

Rannsóknastofa í kvennafræðum, Ice.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2000). Myndlistakennsla í grunnskóla: sagan í dag og forsagan [Art educa-

tion in comprehensive school: the story today and the background]. Lecture at the Iceland

Academy of Art.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2001a). Art, sloyd and the good life. In Visioner om slöjd och slöjdpedagogik,

Techne Serien B:10/2001, pp. 140-149. NordFo Nordisk Forum för Forskning och utvickling-

sarbete inom utbildning i slöjd, Vasa, Fin.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2001b). The historian framed in her picture of the past. In Visioner om

slöjd och slöjdpedagogik, Techne Serien B:10/2001, pp. 150-158. NordFo Nordisk Forum för

Forskning och utvicklingsarbete inom utbildning i slöjd, Vasa, Fin.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2001c). Urban – Rural interaction in the cultural sector. In I. R. Eðvaldsson

(Ed.), Bright summer nights and long distances. Rural and Regional development in the Nordic-

Scottish Context, (pp. 192-203). The University of Akureyri, Ice.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2003). Námsmat í myndlist, mat á myndlistarkennslu og aðferðir listgag-

nrýni [Evaluation and assessment in art, art education and art criticism]. Netla (webjournal

on education), Iceland University of education.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2005). How do managers of cultural institutions relate to cultural tourism?

The 14th Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Akureyri, Ice. [CD]Henttinen, Guðrún H. (2001). Textílmennt með augum textílkennarans [Textile education

through the eyes of textile educators]. Reykjavík: The University of Iceland, Faculty of Social

Sciences. [Unpublished M.Ed. thesis].



Illeris, Helene (2004). Kunstpædagogistk forskning og formidling i Norden 1995-2004 [Nordic

research in visual arts education in museums and galleries 1995-2004]. Skärhamn, Sw.: The


Ingimarsdóttir, Jóhanna Þ. (2000). Höndin hlýði sálinni og hreyfi st sem hugurinn vill. Áherslur tólf

myndlistakennara í kennslu [The hand complies with the soul and moves as the mind wants.

Emphases of twelve art teachers in teaching]. Reykjavík: The Iceland University of Educa-

tion. [Unpublished M.Ed. theses].

Irwin, Rita (2004). Introduction. In R. L. Irwin and A. de Cosson (Eds.). a/r/tography rendering

self through arts-based living inquiry. Vancouver, Can., Pacifi c Educational Press.

Jónsdóttir, Ásthildur B. (2003). Listavefur krakka: tölvu- og upplýsingatækni í myndlistakennslu

[Kids Art Web: computer and information technology in art education]. Reykjavík: The

Iceland University of Education. [Unpublished M.Ed. theses].

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (2003). The role of art and art making in adolescents’ everyday life. Akureyri,

Ice.: The University of Akureyri. [Unpublished M.Ed. theses].

Michael, Maureen (2005). Myndlistaskólinn í Reykjavík. Refl ections from an outsider.

Myndlistaskólinn í Reykjavík, Ice.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2004). The national curriculum guide for compulsory

school: general section. Reykjavík, Ice.: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

National Curriculum [Aðalnámskrá Grunnskóla: listgreinar]. (1999). Reykjavík, Ice.: Men-

ntamálaráðuneytið.

National Curriculum [Aðalnámskrá Grunnskóla: almennur hluti]. (2006). Reykjavík, Ice.:

Menntamálaráðuneytið.

Shulman, Lee (2002). Making diff erences: A Table of Learning. Change, 34(6), pp. 36-44.



ART, DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PARTICIPATION

Themes in Norwegian Studies 1995–2007

Liv Merete Nielsen

IntroductionThroughout the last ten years, the position of the fi eld of art and design education has been strengthened at all levels in the Norwegian educational system. This is a result of an increased general awareness of art, design and architecture. It has become more evident that artefacts play a central role in our lives and our culture, they tell stories about the conditions under which we live and work, as well as how they communicate values and interests we want to be related to. This extended role of the artefacts, beyond the func-tional, is a part of the societal changes and as such included into the general education for citizenship. The role of the artefacts has been strategically channelled into the national curriculum for general education.

As art, design and architecture have such a central position in our lives and culture, relevant research is required as a base for the design of our physical environment and as a background for implementing adequate goals for, and content of, general education. Research within the traditional uni-versity disciplines, such as psychology, education and art history, seems not to be able to off er suffi ciently tuned “tools” to develop a relevant know-ledge base. Several attempts to generate such “tools” have been observed internationally. Among them can be noted some eff orts made at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) where the concept of making professions and making disciplines (Dunin-Woyseth & Michl, 2001) have been developed. The Norwegian educational policies and strategies require also that all education at the university level is based on relevant research. As a consequence of these guidelines, a process of building the research fi eld within art and design and the education related to these subjects has been strengthened. This article will give an overview of some central aspects of how the Norwegian art and design education, as well as research within this fi eld, have developed during the recent ten years. It will also introduce some strategies for developing this research further.


The Norwegian educational system and its contentThe Norwegian educational system is guided by national curricula. Both primary and secondary education received new national curricula – named Kunnskapsløftet [Knowledge Promotion] – in August 2006. The teacher training education is also guided by national guidelines.

Primary and lower secondary education Norway is the only Scandinavian country where art, design, architecture and craft are merged into a single broad subject in the primary and lower secondary school. This merge was executed in 1960 for the subject now cal-led Kunst og håndverk [Art and Crafts]. The national curriculum is being renewed approximately every tenth year, and it mirrors the changes to the prevailing ideas about what is actual and needed for the contemporary period and for the future.

Figure 3. Drawing, Textile and Woodwork [Sløyd] were introduced in the national curriculum

for primary and lower secondary school in the late 1800s. These three subjects were merged

into one subject, Forming, in 1960. In the period from 1960 to 1997 the paradigm of self-

expression infl uenced the subject. After 1997, when the subject changed name to Art and

Crafts, the focus has been moved towards visual communication, design, art and architecture.

Today the subject Kunst og håndverk contains four main areas, they being: Visual Communication, Design, Art and Architecture. Within these four fi elds the children are supposed to work in the studios and combine their practi-cal work with refl ection, thus building a new insight in visual and material culture in perspective both of personal, local and global sustainability. From

Drawing

Textile Woodwork

Forming (1960)

(1997)

Art and Crafts



the age of six to the age of sixteen, 1st through 10th grade in the national cur-riculum, this subject has a central position as a core subject, with altogether 627 hours of supervised classes. This equals approximately 2 hours a week (one year: 35 weeks) for ten years.

From 2006 the subject has, among other aims, as its function to prepare the children for democratic participation in processes that will involve chan-ges in their physical environment, i.e. in its developing and planning. Such participation requires spatial and visual literacy. As the objectives for the subject are related to local culture, the schools are encouraged to connect assignments to such understanding and development. The assignments can for example be information design for the school, decoration of classrooms or scenography for a local theatre, it can be web-pages or the making of alternative sketches and models for the future local environment. It can also be art and the design of artefacts for everyday life such as clothes and jewellery.

Upper secondary educationThe upper secondary education in Norway is divided into vocational training and further general education. Vocational training (age 16–20) is structured as two years of study in school and two years as an apprentice in an enter-prise. Three years of study (age 16–19) at further general education prepare for studies at the level of universities and university colleges. The vocational programmes related to art and design, are: Medier og kommunikasjon [Media and Communication] and Design og håndverk [Design and Crafts]. Medier og kommunikasjon is a very popular programme where there are well organised solutions for both receiving a vocational certifi cation, as for instance media technician, but it is also possible to qualify for further university studies. At the programme Design and håndverk, the students can choose between 46 vocational alternatives, where some of them are interior design, hairdres-sing or textile design.

The most groundbreaking news within the fi eld of art and design edu-cation in the curriculum of 2006 is the inclusion and acceptance of the programme Formgivingsfag [Design] into the general education that prepa-res for studies at university level. This is an issue that the national asso-ciation Kunst og design i skolen [National Association for Art and Design in Education], has promoted for years. The main subjects in Formgivingsfag are: Visuelle kunstfag [Visual art] and Design og Arkitektur [Design and Architec-ture]. These two subjects count 840 supervised classes over a period of three years (can also be executed over two years). In addition students can select from four art-related courses: Visuell kultur og samfunn [Visual Culture and



Community], Scenografi og kostyme [Scenography and Costumes], Trykk og foto [Printmaking and Photography] and Samisk visuell kultur [Sami Visual Culture], each encompassing 140 supervised classes. It is, at most, possible to attend 1,260 (840+140+140+140) classes of art-related courses during the three years within the general education programme at this level.

Teacher training at university colleges A teacher training certifi cate is required for teaching art and design in pri-mary and secondary education. There are three ways to qualify for such a certifi cate:

• Education as classroom teacher with license to teach from level 1–10 in all subjects. This degree is given at 18 national colleges throughout the country and lasts for 4 years (240 credits). Specialisation within the subject Kunst og håndverk is optional.

• Faglærerutdanning i formgiving, kunst og håndverk [Specialised Teacher Training in Design, Art and Crafts] is off ered at two university colleges: Avdeling for estetiske fag (EST) at Høgskolen i Oslo (HiO) (Department of Art and Design Education at Oslo University College) and Avdeling for estetiske fag, folkekultur og lærerutdanning (EFL) at Høgskolen i Tele-mark (HiT) (Department for Aesthetics, Folklore and Teacher Education at Telemark University College). This specialisation lasts for three years (180 credits). It is also possible to become a specialist by adding one year of an intensive teacher training course to a degree as artist, designer or architect.

• The third way to get a license is to attend teacher training education with specialisation in several aesthetic subjects such as arts, craft, music, Norwegian, dance, and drama. It is called Faglærerutdanning i praktisk-estetiske fag [Specialist Teacher Training in Aesthetics] and it consists of 180 credits, and is off ered at fi ve University Colleges which are located in Nesna, Agder, Telemark, Stord/Haugesund, and Tromsø.

The teacher training programmes in art and design build upon various tradi-tions. These traditions and epistemologies have been mapped and discussed by Jorunn Spord Borgen (1995), Karen Brænne (2004) and Marte Gulliksen (2006). The challenge for the teacher training programmes is to build upon such research and thus make traditions visible for a critical discussion related to the educational aims. Already in 1995, Jorunn Spord Borgen wrote that



the individualistic traditions in art education had its successor in the ideas of postmodernism. The romantic philosophy of self-expression has, to some extent, still infl uence on teacher education within art and design.

Master’s degrees since 1976When the colleges for teacher training became university colleges in 1973, the institutions were challenged to build up research within their profes-sional areas. The teacher training colleges in Oslo (HiO/EST) and Telemark (HiT/EFL) started their Hovedfag i forming, in 1976. This M.A. degree, now named Master i Formgiving, kunst og håndverk [Master in Art and Design Education], is unique in the way that it requires a thesis, a piece of practical work as well as an oral defence from the candidates. All theses are expected to have an educational link to the topic studied. By including works of art and design in the research, this Norwegian M.A. programme have experienced and developed, for more than 30 years, what is now emerging as research by design and research by art.

Since 1976 approximately 500 students have completed their theses in art and design education. It is diffi cult to delineate specifi c trends in the selec-tion of topics in these M.A. theses. However, Ella Melbye has written an overview on the topics of the M.A. theses at HiT from 1976–1999 (2003). She divides them into fi ve categories; 1) studies with a point of departure in human recourses, 2) studies of interaction processes, 3) studies of composi-tion, 4) studies of materials and craftsmanship, and 5) studies with a base in artefacts and context.

As an eff ort for making the M.A. theses better disseminated, the Oslo programme has started to publish theses for sale. By average the three best are being selected annually by a committee. Among the published theses, there has been a focus on discussing art in context, semiotics and the dis-semination of art (Due, 2002; Fyrileiv, 2003; Fossum, 2006; Gryte, 2005; Johnsrud, 2005; Skregelid, 2005; Øverjordet, 2006; Gunnerød, 2006; Hansen, 2007; Haugeplass, 2007; Andreassen, 2007). Only two of the published M.A. theses have a focus on material experimentation (Ytterstad, 2002; Thodal, 2005). Some theses have a critical analysis of curricula, both the ideological and the formal, and discuss the cultural and contextual premises for educa-tion in primary and secondary school (Brænne, 2002; Fauske, 2002; Øyan, 2003; Underthun, 2003; Digranes, 2006; Lefdal, 2007; Lutnæs, 2007).

Doctoral studiesIn the recent twenty years, the universities have developed their doctoral pro-grammes with mandatory organized research education. The latter has been based on training the doctoral students in the use of theory and methods



for preparing them to writing their doctoral theses. To be accepted at such a doctoral programme, a doctoral grant is required. Consequently the “hun-ting” for grants has become a part of building up research within a fi eld. Since the two existing M.A. programmes in art and design education are situated at university colleges without the right to confer a doctoral degree and thus without own doctoral programmes, M.A. students with ambitions for further research training have been referred to doctoral programmes at the universities. The problem is however, that universities usually exclude alumni from other fi elds of knowledge than their own disciplines. This has, for some years, been a predicament for the doctoral candidates who gradua-ted from the art and design education colleges.

The fi rst educational practitioner with a M.A. degree in Art and design education, who was successful in entering a doctoral programme at a uni-versity, was Jorunn Spord Borgen. She received her doctoral degree at the Faculty of Art History at the University of Bergen. In her thesis she discusses the aspects of knowledge and quality related to design made by professional designers compared to design by amateurs (Borgen, 1998). The same year Steinar Kjosavik got his doctoral degree at the Faculty of Education at the University of Oslo. His thesis gives a historical overview over the national curriculum development in Norway from the time when the subject area named drawing, textiles for girls and woodwork for boys entered the cur-riculum in primary school until the three subjects were merged into For-ming in 1960. In this period the philosophical base of the subjects changed from training skills for house and home to the subject Forming where the ideal was infl uenced by self-expression (Kjosavik, 1998). Both Borgen and Kjosavik had their master’s degrees from M.A. programmes in art and design education.

Researchers with a base in university disciplines have from time to time shown interest in art education and especially for self-expression through drawing. As far in the past as in 1918 the psychologist Helga Eng published her book Kunstpedagogik [Art education]. She was critical to the paradigm of her time with formal training and imitation in drawing education, and in her writing she was inspired by, among others, John Ruskin. She is well known for her longitudinal study of the drawing development of her niece, Margaret (Eng, 1931, 1957). Her books are translated into English, and later also to German and Japanese. Anders Lysne and Gunnar Danbolt have, seen from the point of view of their disciplines of education and art history, given valuable contributions to the fi eld of art and design education. Else Marie Halvorsen got her doctoral degree in education at the University of Oslo in 1996. She writes in her thesis about the cultural legacy and the aesthetic dimensions in the Norwegian educational practise (Halvorsen, 1996).



But even if the contributions from researchers with a platform within the university disciplines have been valuable, the need for research within the fi eld of art and design education itself, “from within”, is evident. By the latter term, research in art and design education by the art and design edu-cators themselves is understood. A parallel term can be found in the Danish research milieu around the Aarhus School of Architecture where a term has been coined “arkitekturfaglig arkitekturforskning” (architectural research by architects themselves). Practitioners of art and design education have the possibility to develop knowledge on the base of their knowing “how” instead of the discipline-based knowing “that” (Ryle, 1945). Research “from within” by practitioners in art and design education as well as research “from outside” in the same fi elds by academic disciplines together pose diff erent epistemological points of departure. They are complementary to each other rather than they represent an “either – or situation”.

Doctoral programme for the making professionsWhen the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) opened their doctoral programme for practitioners within other fi elds than architecture in 1995, it indicated a turning point for research within art and design edu-cation. Now artists, designers and educators got the possibility to qualify for research within their own fi eld of practise and knowledge. The leader for the doctoral programme, professor Halina Dunin-Woyseth, has developed an epistemological base for the programme, when introducing the concept of a making discipline derived from the challenges for the making professi-ons (Dunin-Woyseth & Michl, 2001). Her idea of building an independent research fi eld to respond to the explicit demands for an informed fi eld of practice within art and design education has earned attention in Europe and Asia. It was presented in Japan in 2003 (Dunin-Woyseth & Nielsen) and in Brussels in 2005 (Dunin-Woyseth). As a young fi eld of inquiry the making disciplines need to collaborate with other fi elds of knowledge and exper-tise. Transdisciplinarity has therefore been promoted as a broader strategy for various making professions. In 2004 Dunin-Woyseth and Nielsen edited a publication on transdisciplinarity with a specifi c focus on the challenges and potentials that the new mode of knowledge production represents for the making professions (Dunin-Woyseth & Nielsen, 2004).

According to various schools in the professional studies, the building of a new fi eld of academic knowledge to be derived from a fi eld of practice should be based on the three main components which together constitute its knowledge base; history, theory and criticism (see for example various master’s and doctoral studies in architecture and design in North America).



History is needed to understand the background and legacy of a fi eld and to defi ne it with regard to other fi elds of knowledge. Theory is built on the ongoing research in dialogue with other fi elds of knowledge, while criticism follows what is regarded as quality standards in practice. However, the pur-pose for building a new fi eld of inquiry is to secure a critical mass of resear-chers who are able to run a qualifi ed discussion both at the ontological and the epistemological level of the fi eld in question. This is why the education of doctoral candidates within the fi eld of art and design education has a high priority.

Doctorates at AHO – by practitioners in art and design educationThe fi rst practitioner in art and design education who got a doctoral de-gree at the AHO-doctoral programme was Liv Merete Nielsen. The the-sis states that more and more decisions will be made on the base of visual representations and consequently visual communication becomes a key aspect of the general education (2000). Hilde Aga Ulvestad got her doctoral degree in 2001 based on the studies of creativity in art making processes. She built upon the theories of Vygotsky. Eirin Pedersen’s doctoral thesis studies “drawing the nude”. She discusses the nude-drawing in a contextual, discursive and paradigmatic perspective, including the gender perspective (2004). Øystein Cruikshank should have fi nished his thesis in 2005, but he passed away tragically in a car accident in 2004. Parts of his thesis were, however, edited and published in 2006. He discussed taste and power in the art through the studies of a worldwide known Norwegian art project, Skulp-turlandskap Nordland [Sculpture landscape in Nordland], where sculptures by well-known international artists were placed in several municipalities in the county of Nordland (Cruikshank, 2006). In her thesis, Marte Gul-liksen discusses how formbild is constructed in teacher training education, with a base in empirical studies and discourse analysis (2006). In 2007 Janne Beate Reitan defended her thesis on strategy for design learning. From her studies of Inuit vernacular design she describes and discusses the concept of “learning by watching”. Berit Ingebrethsen is expected to fulfi l her dispu-tations at AHO in 2008. She has studied visual rhetoric’s in drawings based on metaphor. Her research is based in semiotic theory. Bente Ytterstad, who explores the potentials of the making process in the production of know-ledge, is expected to fi nish her thesis in 2009.

Several university colleges have acknowledged the importance of securing a critical mass of researchers in order to build a fi eld of knowledge in art and design education, and consequently they have raised grants. These grants are of great value as they are, as mentioned before, a precondition for being



accepted at a Norwegian doctoral programme. Several doctoral candidates are expected to fulfi l their theses at AHO by 2011; Karen Brænne (Volda University College – HiVolda) studies the philosophies of art and design education in teacher training. Morten Lerpold (Telemark University College – HiT) investigates art in public space. Ingvild Digranes (Oslo University College – HiO) discusses confl icting interests when representatives for the “art-world” enter the school arena. Laila Belinda Fauske (HiO) analyses why and how architecture has been given a position in the national curricula. Morteza Amari (HiT) studies how Information and Computer Technology (ICT) can be used in both creating images and in distance education. Sissel Bro (HiT) is investigating the relations between body, space and movement in creative processes. Eva Lutnæs (HiO) is investigating the practise of eva-luation within the teacher training colleges in art and craft. Finally, Anna Austestad (HiO) is studying visual culture in relation to the national cur-riculum and Målfrid Irene Hagen (Buskerud University College) is investi-gating the role of art, design and architecture in companies.

Doctors at other universities and abroadIn 2000, Hilde Lidén got her doctoral degree at the Faculty of Social Studies at the University of Oslo (UiO). She studied how children learned through cultural processes in a pluralistic environment (Lidén, 2000). Elisabeth Lønnå received her degree at the same faculty in 2002. She has studied the legacy and writings of Helga Eng (Lønnå, 2002). Both Marit Holm Hop-perstad and Bjørn Magne Aakre got their degree at the Faculty of Education at the NTNU in Trondheim. Hopperstad fi nished in 2002 with a study on children’s drawing and meaning making in kindergarten. Her fi ndings are discussed in a semiotic perspective (Hopperstad, 2002). Aakre has in his thesis described and analysed the background for how design has been included in the national curricula in the secondary education (Aakre, 2005). In 2003, Ellen Sæthre-McGuirk fi nished her thesis at the Katholieke Universiteit i Leuven, Belgium. Her topic was Susanne Langer’s aesthetic theory and its application to the works of art by Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman. Both Arne Marius Samuelsen and Guri Østby got their degree at the Faculty of Art History at the University of Bergen (UiB). Samuelsen has studied the dissemination of art for children in primary school (Samuelsen, 2003). Østby has investigated how art can be used as a medium for general education in primary school (Østby, 2006). Venke Aure is expected to fi nish her thesis at Stockholm University in 2009. In her thesis she discusses the importance of art in the lives of children and youth.



As mentioned earlier, the University of Bergen opened up their doctoral programme for practitioners in art and design education with the public defence by Jorunn Spord Borgen in 1998. Later, Nina Scott Frisch was accep-ted at the doctoral programme at NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim) on the base of her M.A. in art and design education from HiO. Frisch is expected to fi nish her thesis on children’s strategy for drawing through the so-called “drawing crisis” in 2009. On the same base Bjørg Tronshart has taken part of the doctoral programme in Vasa, Finland. Her research topic is exhibition in a rhetoric perspective. Five more candidatetes with a base as practitioners in art and design education have during the last few years received grants for doctoral studies. Anniken Randers-Pehrson, Kirstine Wiingaard Thrane, Birthe Brekketo, Torunn Paulsen Dagsland and Lisbet Skregeli are connected to doctoral programmes at the Universities of Oslo, Stavanger and Agder.

Research topicsIt is diffi cult to delineate specifi c trends in the selection of topics in the doctoral theses, books, book-chapters, articles and reports published over the last years. Regarding the doctoral theses in art and design education, the focus for research has taken its point of departure in either material and functional experimentation, historical documents, studies of educational practises or theory. Methodological approaches are chosen to match each research project; it may be based in text, observations, interviews, narrations or action research – used as a base for deconstruction, discourse analysis or critical studies. Methods are carefully chosen tools – they are seldom goals in themselves.

Material and functional experimentation and analyses for educational contexts have from time to time been a popular choice at the M.A. level, but not so often in the recent ten years. A historical background is also given in the status questionis in almost all theses, but Steinar Kjosavik (1998) and Bjørn Magne Aakre (2005) have a main focus on analysing historical curri-cula and the political documents prior to them. Studies of educational prac-tices and outcomes of art and design processes are an often chosen point of departure for doctoral theses within the making professions. This is also often the case for researchers with a base in the traditional university dis-ciplines. Among the doctoral projects in progress, a majority of the studies involve some kind of analyses of artefacts and educational practises. They are analysed in relation to diff erent theories and discussed in an epistemo-logical context.



Educational objectives and legitimationQuestions related to objectives for art and design education are inseparably linked to the legitimation of the subjects in primary and secondary school. Consequently, this is a frequent research topic when studying educational practises. In Norway we have a legacy for discussing these questions with a base in what happened 75 years ago. In 1931 educators of art and craft built a common association for teachers; Norsk tegne- og håndarbeidslærer forbund [Norwegian Association for Teachers of Arts and Craft]. This merge into a common association had its base in emerging pedagogical ideas, as opposed to the craftsman tradition. Thirty years later, in 1960, these ideas of merging the two traditions were implemented in the national curriculum. The con-fl icting ideas between the pedagogical aims and the craftsman tradition have for years been a main issue when discussing everyday practise in the Norwegian primary and lower secondary education. Consequently, the edu-cational aims for and content of, as well as the discussions on legitimation of the subject, have been important issues for Norwegian researchers, per-haps more important than in any other Nordic country.

Researchers as Liv Merete Nielsen, Marte Gulliksen, Karen Brænne and Nina Skott Frisch have studied how diff erent traditions and philosophies have infl uenced the everyday practise and outcome in art and design edu-cation at diff erent levels. The curricula of 2006 (Kunnskapsløftet) represent a balance where the tradition of the creative art, the visual culture (inspi-red by Nordström, 1972), the craftsman tradition and the empowerment orientation (inspired by Freire, 1970) contribute to the children’s creation of artefacts with required contextual quality and function. Knowledge and skills developed in art and design education function as a base for democra-tic participation in cultural, social and environmental developments of eve-ryday life, where strategic choices have to be made. In such a context the pe-dagogical paradigm of self-expression and the craftsman tradition of skills are complementary, not contradictory. Arne Marius Samuelsen (2003), Venke Aure (2006) and Guri Østby (2006) have in their research been occupied by the dissemination of art, and art as a point of departure for philosophical discussions. The appreciation of art, as a goal in itself, is also discussed.

National evaluationsTwo evaluations of school practise have been made in 1995 (Carlsen & Streitlien) and 2003 (Kjosavik, Koch, Skjeggestad & Aakre). The report from 2003 has a focus on the implementation of the L97 curriculum. Both reports conclude that the subject is a highly valued subject among the children. It also reveals that changes within the educational system are a very slow process. In 2001



the M.A. studies in Oslo and Notodden were evaluated by Norgesnettrådet (2001) on the base of the analyses of M.A. theses and interviews with both students and professors (Danbolt, Nygren-Landgärds & Lindström, 2001). The evaluation was positive, and it recommended increased research acti-vity into the core fi eld of art and design education. An evaluation on the national project, Den Kulturelle Skolesekken (DKS) (The Cultural Rucksack), was published in 2006. It reveals confl icting interests and practises when values of the “art-world” meet and cooperate with the “educational world” in primary and lower secondary schools (Borgen & Brandt, 2006).

Research networks and periodicalsThe Network for Nordic Researchers in Visual Arts Education (NetNoRVAE) has been an important inspiration for the early development of the research community in Norway. Lars Lindström has through his initiative for arranging workshops and seminars in Bräkne-Hoby (1994), Helsinki and Copenhagen (1995), Tisvildeleie and Ronneby (1996), Vilnius (1997), Lysebu/Oslo (1998) and Iceland (1999) given valuable contributions to the building of the re-search fi eld. Two volumes of Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies (Lind-ström, 1998, 2000) have been published as a result of this network and these conferences. There is also another Nordic research network, Nordisk Forum for forskning og udviklingsarbejde inden for forming, håndarbejde og sløjd samt duodji/samesløj (NORFO) (Nordic forum for research and development within crafts including duodji), which arranges workshops and publishes articles – some in the Finnish series Techne. This network focuses more on the craft tradition and has therefore less bearing on this chapter.

The Norwegian art and design education research community has its base at the M.A. programmes in Oslo and Telemark, and at the doctoral programme at AHO. As students are linked to the programmes only through their educational period, the need for a broader research network has been articulated. Therefore DesignDialog was established in 2002 as a forum for researchers after fi nishing their doctoral studies (Nielsen, 2004). The net-work gathers researchers with topics related to design and design education in a broad perspective. Besides arranging workshops, the network has pro-moted publications. http://www.designdialog.no.

More or less informal research networks connected to specifi c research projects exist; here are some with international cooperation. Aure partici-pates in the project supported by the Nordisk Ministerråd (Offi cial co-ope-ration in the Nordic region) on dissemination of art in Nordic museums. Kirsten Klæbo and Bodil Svaboe cooperate with the University of Umeå



in Sweden in a project on textile design. Liv Merete Nielsen, Janne Beate Reitan and Ingvild Digranes participate in the European DEsignCOmmuni-cation (DECO) project.

The Norwegian national journal for art and design education is called FORM. It contains broad national discussions on educational issues and cur-riculum development. The lack of suitable channels for publication of refe-ree-based articles in this fi eld explains why Norwegian researchers often pu-blish their articles as chapters in edited books. Thus, Norwegian researchers have published in the following international referee-based periodicals the last years: The International Journal of Art & Design Education, Nordic Jour-nal of Architectural Research, Scandinavian Journal of Design History, Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift, Tidsskrift for børne- og ungdomslitteratur, Information Design Journal and Codesign.

The need for a referee-based periodical within art and design education has been evident. Therefore the organisation that publishes the journal FORM has taken the initiative to establish FORMakademisk (FORMacade-mic). The fi rst issue was published in and is ranked offi cially as a scientifi c journal. 2008, articles are published in the Nordic languages or in English.

ChallengesWithin a few years the number of researchers with a doctorate degree, rooted in the fi eld of art and design education, will increase. The number of researchers will reach the critical mass that is required for building a sustai-nable research society. Further, there is a demand for research conferences and publications to build arenas for presentation of research and critical discussions at an epistemological level.

Oslo University College has, in cooperation with Arkitektur- og Design-høgskolen in Oslo (AHO) and the UiO, arranged three doctoral courses in art and design education (June 2005- June 2007). The challenge is to develop these courses further in cooperation with other universities and colleges. Irrespective of the future organisation of the universities in Norway, there is a movement working for developing programmes for art and design edu-cation at the doctoral level.

It is not easy to say something about the topics for further research, as the fi eld of art and design education is in need of research at a broad spectrum. Research interests among Norwegian researchers are, at the present, con-nected to two domains: 1) design education and 2) dissemination of art for children and youth. Both these areas have their national and international networks. The interest for the history, development and implementation of curricula still seems to give inspiration for further research. So is also



research connected to the development and legitimation of art and design as a subject for the future. This must be seen in the context of cultural diversity, visual culture and the communicative role of artefacts in social and environmental development.

The ethical aspects of consumption will probably be even more evident for art and design education in the future. A sustainable development within culture, environment and communities will need qualifi ed users and decision-makers. Environmental participation presupposes knowledge on a broad scale, including the interpretation of visual representations.

Comments to the list of publicationsThe Norwegian list of publication is divided into fi ve parts: doctoral theses, books, chapters in books, articles and reports. The selection is done at discretion, being quite aware of that some titles could have been included and some excluded. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

The theses listed are fi rst of all based on the criteria of being written by practising art and design educators; or they were given attention and were widely read in the art and design education community. The same can be said about the books and chapters listed. As mentioned earlier, the relative high number of chapters in books can be explained by the fact that there has been a limited number of research based periodicals in Nordic languages. Researchers therefore publish their writings in edited books. The number of articles listed is not low, but it contains articles that normally will not be listed as research. Still, there is a reason why they are presented here – that is because they are documentations for important debates. Textbooks, M.A. theses that have not been published for sale, and articles in FORM descri-bing educational practises, are excluded from the list.



References

Andreasen, Maria. (2007). Den underlige veska [The surprising bag]. (No. 3). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Aure, Venke. (2006). Formidling av bilder til barn som kunstdidaktisk diskurs [Dissemination

of images for children as art educational discourse]. Tidsskrift for børne- og ungdomslitteratur,

51, pp. 133-153.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord. (1995). Formingsfaget i et oppdragelses- og danningsperspektiv [Art

education in an upbringing and educational perspective]. In B. Tronshart (Ed.), Formings-

fagets egenart. En artikkel- og essaysamling. Evaluering av formingsfaget i grunnskolen. Bø, Norw.:

Høgskolen i Telemark og Telemarksforskning.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord. (1998). Kunnskapens stabilitet og fl yktighet: om forholdet mellom amatører og

profesjonelle i kunstfeltet [Stability and transitoriness of knowledge: about relations between

amateurs and professionals in thye fi eld of art]. Bergen, Norw.: Det historisk-fi losofi ske fakultet,

Institutt for kulturstudier og kunsthistorie. Universitetet i Bergen.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord & Brandt, Synnøve. (2006). Ekstraordinært eller selvfølgelig? - Evaluering

av Den kulturelle skolesekken i grunnskolen [Extraordinary or obvious? - An evaluation of The

cultural rucksack in compulsory school]. (No. 5) Oslo, Norw.: NIFU STEP.

Brænne, Karen. (2002). Upåverka?: læraren sin bruk av eigen estetisk produksjon i undervisning

[Uninfl uenced?: the teachers’ use of his own aesthetic production in teaching] (No. 10).

Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avd. for estetiske fag.

Brænne, Karen. (2004). Kunst- og designdidaktikk i lærerutdanning. Praksisfellesskap og

kunnskapsutvikling [Art and design education in teacher training. Community in practice

and development of knowledge]. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog – designforskning i et

demokratisk perspektiv (No. 22, pp. 77-85). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Carlsen, Kari & Streitlien, Åse. (1995). Elev- og lærerperspektiv på formingsfaget: resultater fra

en spørreundersøkelse [Pupils and teachers perspective on art and crafts: results of a survey].

(No. 5) Notodden, Norw.: Telemarksforsking.

Cruikshank, Øystein. (2006). Defi nisjonsmakt og smak i kunstfeltet [Power of defi nition and

taste in the fi eld of art]. In L. M. Nielsen, K. D. Opstad & R. Norum (Eds.), Kunst, engasjement

og frosne tær. Til minne om Øystein Cruikshank (pp. 18-71). Tromsø, Norw.: Eureka forlag.

Danbolt, Gunnar, Nygren-Landgärds, Christina, & Lindström, Lars (2001). Hovedfag i forming

ved Høgskolen i Oslo og Høgskolen i Telemark, avdeling Notodden, samt hovedfag i samisk

kunsthåndverk ved Høgskolen i Oslo. Vedlegg [Master in art education at Oslo and Telemark

University College including duodji at Oslo University College. Appendix]. In Norgesnettrådet

(Ed.), Evaluering av huvudfag ved statlige høgskolar uten paralleller i universitetssystemet.

Vedlegg (Vol. 5, pp. 51-61). Oslo, Norw.: Norgesnettrådet.

Digranes, Ingvild. (2006). Bygg meg eit bilete - skap meg ei verd: Skulptur i samtidskunst og undervisning

[Create a picture - build a world: Sculpture in contemporary art and art education] (No. 6).

Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Due, Martin. (2002). Skrevet i stein: En undersøkelse av et innholdstypifi serende bildespråk [Written

in stone: An investigation of semiotic typifi cation in pictorial language] (No. 20). Høgskolen

i Oslo, Norw.



Dunin-Woyseth, Halina. (2005). The “thinkable” and the “unthinkable” doctorates. In J. Michl

& L. M. Nielsen (Eds.), Building a doctoral programme in architecture and design (pp. 149-173).

Oslo School of Architecture and Design.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Michl, Jan (Eds.). (2001). Towards a disciplinary identity of the making

professions: The Oslo Millennium Reader (Vol. 4). Oslo School of Architecture.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete. (2003). From apprentice to master. Some

notes on educating design scholars and developing design scholarship. In D. Durling & K.

Sugiyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference Doctoral Education in Design. 3rdDED

Tsukuba (pp. 25-34). University of Tsukuba, Jap.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (Eds.). (2004). Discussing Transdisciplinarity:

Making Professions and the New mode of Knowledge Production. The Nordic Reader 2004 (Vol. 6).


Eng, Helga. (1918). Kunstpedagogik [Art education] Christiania: Aschehoug.

Eng, Helga. (1931). The Psychology of Children’s Drawing: From the First Stroke to the Coloured

Drawing. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.

Eng, Helga. (1957). The Psychology of Child and Youth Drawing: From the Ninth to theTwenty-

fourth Year. London: Routledge & Paul Kegan.

Fauske, Laila Belinda. (2002). Det kjente og det ukjente: et kulturmøte [The known and the

unknown: a cultural meeting) (No. 19). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avd. for estetiske fag.

Fossum, Rønnaug. (2006). Samtidsarkeologi og visuelt fast food: Kunst, IKEA og det bildepedago-

giske feltet [Contemporary archaeology and visual fast-food: Art, IKEA and the fi eld of visual

art education] (No. 14). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avd. for estetiske fag.

Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Fyrileiv, Errol. (2003). Et sted å undre seg med: samspillet mellom sted og skulptur [A place to

wonder: interaction between space and sculpture] (No. 20). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avd.

for estetiske fag.

Gryte, Mari Anne Ellingsen. (2005). Tegn i vinden [Signs in the wind] (No. 10). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Gulliksen, Marte. (2006). Constructing a formbild – an inquiry into the dynamical and hierarchical

aspects of the hermeneutical fi lters controlling the formbild construction in design education situa-

tions (Vol. 34). Oslo School of Architecture.

Gunnerød, Sissel. (2006). Poesi og performativitet - broderi i en ny kontekst [Poetry and performa-

tivity - embroidery in a new context] (No. 13). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Halvorsen, Else Marie. (1996). Kulturarv og kulturarvoverføring i grunnskolen med vekt på den

estetiske dimensjonen: en begreps- og erfaringsanalyse med et didaktisk perspektiv [Cultural

heritage and transference of cultural heritage in compulsory school emphasizing the aes-

thetic dimension: an analysis of terms and experience in an educational perspective]. Uni-

versitetet i Oslo, Norw.: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet.

Hansen, Siv Heidi. (2007). Det hybride kunstverk - En undersøkelse av interaksjonen mellom bilde,

tekst og lyd i relasjon til betydning og erkjennelse [The hybrid artwork - an investigation of the

interaction between image, text and sound in relation to meaning and recognition] (No. 5).

Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.



Haugeplass, Aasne Bjørgo (2007). Matters of spirit (No. 10). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Hopperstad, Marit Holm. (2002). Når barn skaper mening med tegning – en studie av seksårin-

gers tegninger i et semiotisk perspektiv [When children create meaning with their drawings

– a study of drawings made by six-year-olds in a semiotic perspective]. Trondheim, Norw.:

Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og tekno-

logiledelse, Pedagogisk institutt.

Johnsrud, Ellen. (2005). “Veit ikkje, det er vel kunst antakelegvis”: Ei undersøking av betraktaren si

oppleving av utradisjonelle visningskontekstar i møte med det poetiske bilete [“I don’t know, it’s

probably art” – A research on the viewers experience of untraditional viewing contexts in

meeting the poetic image] (No. 8). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avd. for estetiske fag.

Kirke-, Utdannings- og Forskningsdepartementet. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige

grunnskolen [Curriculum for 10 years general education]. Oslo, Norw.: Kirke-, Utdannings- og

Forskningsdepartementet.

Kjosavik, Steinar. (1998). Fra ferdighetsfag til forming: utviklingen fra tegning, sløyd og håndarbeid

til forming sett i et læreplanhistorisk perspektiv [From skills to forming: development from

drawing, sloyd and textile to forming in a historical perspective of the curriculum]. Univer-

sitetet i Oslo, Norw.: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet.

Kjosavik, Steinar, Koch, Randi-Helene, Skjeggestad, Edith & Aakre, Bjørn Magne. (2003). Kunst

og håndverk i L97: nytt fag – ny praksis? [Art and crafts in the national curriculum of 1997:

new subject – new practice]. (No. 3) Notodden: Telemarksforsking.

Lefdal, Else Margrethe. (2007). (est)etikk takk! [Aesthetichs - thank you!] (No. 15). Høgskolen

i Oslo, Norw.

Lidén, Hilde. (2000). Barn – tid – rom – skiftende posisjoner: kulturelle læreprosesser i et pluralistisk

Norge [Children – time – space – changing positions: cultural learning processes in a pluralistic

Norway]. Trondheim, Norw.: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (1998). Nordic Visual Arts Research. A Theoretical and Methodological

Review. (Vol. 2). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (2000). The Cultural Context. Comparative Studies of Art Education and

Children’s Drawings (Vol. 7). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Lutnæs, Eva. (2007). Vurderingskompetanse i faglærerutdanningen – vekselspill eller kokong? [Eval-

uation in teachertraining – interaction or cocoon] (No. 12). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Lønnå, Elisabeth. (2002). Helga Eng: psykolog og pedagog i barnets århundre [Helga Eng: psychologist

and pedagogue in the children’s century]. Bergen, Norw.: Fagbokforlaget.

Melbye, Ella. (2003). Hovedfagsstudium i forming Notodden 1976-1999. Faglig innhold sett i lys av

det å forme [Master in art and design education Notodden 1976-1999. Content seen in the

perspective of creation]. Notodden, Norw.: Høgskolen i Telemark.

Nielsen, Liv Merete. (2000). Drawing and spatial representations. Refl ections on purposes for art

education in the compulsory school (Vol. 2). Oslo School of Architecture.



Nielsen, Liv Merete. (2004). Design, innovasjon og demokrati – om framveksten av forskernett-

verket DesignDialog [Design, inovation and democracy – about the development of the

resech network DesignDialogue]. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog - designforskning i et

demokratisk perspektiv (No. 22, pp. 3-13). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Nordström, Gert Z & Romilson, Christer. (1972). Skolen, bildet og samfunnet [School, image and

society] (M. Paulsen, Trans.). Oslo, Norw.: Pax Forlag.

Norgesnettrådet. (2001). Evaluering av huvudfag ved statlige høgskolar uten paralleller i univer-

sitetssystemet. Eksterne evalueringsrapporter [Evaluation of Masterstudies at state university

colleges without parallels to the university system. External evaluation reports] (No. 5 -

vedlegg). Oslo, Norw.: Norgesnettrådet.

Pedersen, Eirin Marie Solheim. (2004). Om teckning, tecken, text och teori: aktteckning i ett kon-

textuellt, diskursivt och paradigmatisk perspektiv [About drawing, signs, text and theory: nude

drawing in a contextual, discursive and paradigmatic perspective] (Vol. 16). Arkitekthøgskolen

i Oslo, Norw.

Reitan, Janne Beate. (2007). Improvisation in tradition. A study of contemporary vernacular clothing

design practiced by Iñupiaq women of Kaktovik, North Alaska. (Vol. 37) Oslo School of Archi-

tecture and Design.

Ryle, Gibert. (1945). Knowing How and Knowing That. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,

46, 1-16.

Samuelsen, Arne Marius. (2003). Kunstformidling for barn i kunstmuseum og skole – med vekt på

formidlerrollen [Dissemination of art in museum and school – emphasizing the dissemina-

tion role]. Bergen, Norw.: Institutt for kulturstudier og kunsthistorie.

Skregelid, Lisbet. (2005). “Det var ganske gøy faktisk”: En undersøkelse om formidling av samtids-

kunst rettet mot ungdomsskoleelever [“That was in fact quite fun”: A research on dissemination

of contemporary art for pupils in compulsory school] (No. 9). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Sæthre-McGuirk, Ellen (2003). Susanne Langer’s Aesthetic Theory and its Application to the Works

of Art by Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman. Leuven, Belg.: Katholieke Universiteit i Leuven.

Thodal, Vigdis Stuberg. (2005). Fiberlaminat (No. 11). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avd. for estetiske fag.

Ulvestad, Hilde Aga. (2001). Let us learn to dream, gentlemen: en undersøkelse om forholdet mellom

visuelt skapende arbeid og potensialet for læring [Let us learn to dream, gentlemen: a research

on the relation between visual creative work and the potential for learning] (Vol. 4). Arkitek-

thøgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Underthun, Kari. (2003). Rom for kunst og håndverk: en studie av de estetiske og funksjonelle

aspekter ved rom for kunst og håndverk på nybygde skoler [Room for art and crafts: a study

on the aesthetic and functional aspects of a space for art and crafts in recently completed

schools] (No. 18). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw., Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2006). Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet [Curriculum for the Know-

ledge promotion]. Oslo, Norw.: Utdanningsdirektoratet.



Ytterstad, B. (2002). “Rett i garnet” [“Into the net”] (No. 16). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Østby, Guri. (2006). Barn – kunst – danning: Møter mellom barn og kunst som danningsarena for

barn i grunnskolen [Children – art – education: Children encounterings with art as educational

arena in primary and lower secondary school]. Bergen, Norw.: Universitetet i Bergen.

Øverjordet, Beathe. (2006). Blikk på hus: En undersøkelse av fenomenet hus, og en analyse av sam-

tidskunst ut i fra retorikk, stedsfi losofi ske- og sosialantropologiske perspektiver [View on houses:

a research on the phenomenon house, and an analysis of contemporary art seen through

rhetoric, philosophy of places and social anthropological perspectives] (No. 13). Høgskolen i

Oslo, Norw., Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Øyan, Anne Stol. (2003). Samtidskunst og estetisk opplæring [Contemporary art and aesthetic

education] (No. 19). Høgskolen i Oslo, Norw.

Aakre, Bjørn Magne. (2005). Formgiving og design i et didaktisk perspektiv [Design in an educational

perspective]. Trondheim, Norw.: NTNU.



APPENDIX 1

Swedish Publications 1995-2008

Ph.D. thesesAhlner Malmström, Elisabeth (1998). En analys av sexåringars bildspråk [An analysis of the six

year child’s pictorial language]. Lund University, Lund studies in education, 6.

Andersson, Cecilia (2006). Rådjur och raketer. Gatukonst som estetisk produktion och kreativ praktik

i det off entliga rummet [Roe deer and rockets: street art as creative practice and aesthetic

production in the public space]. Stockholm Institute of Education (HLS Förlag). (Studies in

Educational Sciences, 94)

Bahlenberg, Jan (2001). Den otroliga verkligheten sätter spår: om Carlo Derkerts liv och konstpeda-

gogiska gärning [The incredible reality makes impressions: on Carlo Derkert’s life and art

pedagogical work]. Gothenburg University, Göteborg studies in education science, 161.

Bendroth Karlsson, Marie (1996). Bildprojekt i förskola och skola – estetisk verksamhet och pedago-

giska dilemman [Visual arts projects in preschool and school: aesthetical activity and educa-

tional dilemmas]. Linköping University, Linköping studies in arts and science, 150.

Bjurström, Erling (1997). Högt & lågt – Smak och stil i ungdomskulturen [High and low – Taste

and style in youth culture]. Stockholm University, Doktorsavhandlingar från JMK, 5.

Bolin, Göran (1998). Filmbytare: videovåld, kulturell produktion och unga män [Film exchan-

gers: video violence, cultural production, and young men]. Stockholm University, Doktors-

avhandlingar från JMK, 7.

Dahlman, Ylva (2004). Kunskap genom bilder: en studie i hur studenter inom natur- och samhälls-

vetenskapliga utbildningar fördjupar sin ämnesförståelse genom arbete med bilder [Knowledge

via pictures: a study on how students in Natural and Social science education enlarge their

understanding of the subject by working with pictures]. Sveriges landskapsuniversitet, Acta

Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae. Agraria, 448.

Danielsson, Helena (2002). Att lära med media: om det språkliga skapandets villkor i skolan med

fokus på video [Learning with media: conditions for media language creation at school, with

a focus on video]. Stockholm University, Pedagogiska Institutionen, 107.

Edström, Ann-Mari (2008). Learning in visual art practice. Lund University, Department of

Education.

Göthlund, Anette (1997). Bilder av tonårsfl ickor. Om estetik och identitetsarbete [Pictures by

teenage girls. On aesthetics and identity work]. Linköping University, Linköping Studies in

Arts and Science, 167.

Häikiö, Tarja (2007). Barns estetiska läroprocesser. Atelierista i förskola och skola [Children’s

aesthetic learning processes. Atelierista in pre-school and school]. Göteborg University.

(Gothenburg Studies in Art and Architecture, 24)


Jonsson, Carin (2006). Läsningens och skrivandets bilder. En analys av villkor och möjligheter för

barns läs- och skrivutveckling [Pictures of reading and writing. An analysis of conditions and

possibilities for children’s development of reading and writing skills]. Umeå University,

Fakulteten för lärarutbildning, Nationella Forskarkolan i Pedagogiskt Arbete.

Klerfelt, Anna (2007). Barns multimediala berättande [Children’s digital storytelling and

cultural meaning]. Göteborg University. (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 256)

Lindahl, Ingrid (2002). Att lära i mötet mellan estetik och rationalitet. Pedagogers vägledning och

barns problemlösning genom bild och form [Learning when aesthetics and rationality meet.

Educators’ guidance and children’s problem solving through pictures and form]. Lund

University, Studia psychologica et paedagogica, 163.

Lindgren, Bengt (2005). Bild, visualitet och vetande: diskussion om bild som kunskapsfält inom

utbildning [Picture, visuality, and knowing: discussions on visual art as a fi eld of knowledge

within education]. Gothenburg University, Göteborg studies in educational sciences, 229.

Lindgren, Monica (2006). Att skapa ordning för det estetiska i skolan. Diskursiva positioneringar i

samtal med lärare och skolledare [Bringing order to aesthetics in school. Discursive positio-

ning in conversations with teachers and head teachers]. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet,

Konstnärliga fakulteten. (Art monitor)

Lindstrand, Fredrik (2006). Att göra skillnad: representation, identitet och lärande i ungdomars

arbete och berättande med fi lm [Making diff erence: Representation, identity, and learning in

youngsters’ work and communication with fi lm]. Stockholms universitet, Studies in educa-

tional sciences, 86 (HLS Förlag).

Löfstedt, Ulla (2001). Förskolan som lärandekontext för barns bildskapande [Preschool as a learning

context for children’s pictorial activity]. Gothenburg University, Göteborg studies in edu-

cational science, 153.

Magnusson, Helena (2005). Berättande bilder: svenska tecknade serier för barn [Narrative pictures:

Swedish cartoons for children]. Göteborg: Makadam.

Nordin-Hultman, Elisabeth (2004). Pedagogiska miljöer och barns subjektskapande [Educational

settings and children’s forming of self]. Stockholm: Liber.

Simonsson, Maria (2004). Bilderboken i förskolan – en utgångspunkt för samspel [Picture books in

preschool – an interactional perspective]. Linköpings universitet, Linköping Studies in Arts

and Sciences 287.

Skåreus, Eva (2007). Digitala speglar – föreställningar om lärarrollen och kön i studenters bilder

[Digital mirrors – conceptions of the role of the teacher and gender in students’ pictures].

Umeå: Institutionen för estetiska ämnen, Umeå universitet.

Sparrman, Anna (2002). Visuell kultur i barns vardagsliv – bilder, medier och praktiker [Visual

culture in everyday life of children – Pictures, media, and practices]. Linköping University,

Linköping studies in arts and science.

Svensson, Gary (2000). Digitala pionjärer [Digital pioneers]. Linköping University, Linköping

Studies in Art and Science.

Wetterholm, Hans (2001). En bildpedagogisk studie: lärare undervisar och elever gör bilder [A study

of Art education: teachers teach and students make pictures]. Malmö University College.

(Studia Psychologica et Pædagogica)

APPENDIX 1


Vipsjö, Lars (2005). Den digitala konstens aktörer. En studie av datorintegrering i svensk konstunder-

visning [The performers of digital Art. A study of intergrating computers in Swedish art

education]. Gothenburg University, Göteborg studies in Art and Architecture.

Änggård, Eva (2005). Bildskapande – en del av förskolebarns kamratkulturer [Making pictures: a

part of preschool children’s peer cultures]. Linköping University, Linköping Studies in Arts

and Science, 315.

Öhman-Gullberg, Lisa (2008). Laddade bilder: representation och meningsskapande i unga tjejers

fi lm berättelser [Ambiguous images: representation and meaning-making in young girls’ fi lm-

making]. Stockholm University, Institutionen för didaktik och pedagogiskt arbete.

BooksAnder, Jan-Erik (2003). Tredje språket: kommunikation med fl era sinnen [The third language:

communicating with several senses]. Malmö: Arena.

Aronsson, Karin (1997). Barns världar – barns bilder [Children’s worlds – Children’s pictures].


Aspers, Patrik, Feuhrer, Paul & Sverresson, Árni (Eds.). (2004). Bild och samhälle: visuell analys

som vetenskaplig metod [Picture and society: Visual analysis as scientifi c method]. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena & Thavenius, Jan (2003). Kultur och estetik i skolan [Culture and aesthetics

in school]. Malmö University College. (Rapporter om utbildning, 9/2003: Slutredovisning av

Kultur och skola-uppdraget 2000-2003)

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena, Persson, Magnus & Thavenius, Jan (2005). Skolan och den radikala estetiken

[School and the radical aesthetics]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Bendroth Karlsson, Marie (1998). Bildskapande i förskola och skola [Visual arts projects in

preschool and school]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Berg, Rabert & Campart, Martina (Eds.). (1996). Methods of art as paths to knowledge. Centrum

för didaktik vid Lunds Universitet skriftserie 1/1996, Malmö School of Education.

Birgerstam, Pirjo (2000). Skapande handling – om idéernas födelse [Creative actions – On the

birth of ideas]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Cederblad, Jarl (2007). Learning by observation. Upplevelse och lärande av hantverkskunskaper genom

förevisning [Learning by observation. Experiences and learning of handicraft competences by

demonstration]. Umeå universitet, Pedagogiskt arbete, Fakulteten för lärarutbildning, Insti-

tutionen för estetiska ämnen. (Licentiate thesis)

Dahlberg, Gunilla, Moss, Peter & Pence, Alan R. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education

and care: Languages of evaluation. London: Routledge.

De Laval, Suzanne (2007). Arkitektur i skolan: för att se världen med nya ögon [Architecture in

school: to see the world with fresh eyes]. Stockholm: Arkitekturanalys.

Eklund, Stig (2002). Lärarutbildning – mer än ämnen [Teacher education – more than subject

matter]. Umeå Universitet, Pedagogiska institutionen, 16. (Licentiate thesis)

APPENDIX 1


Elsner, Catharina (1999). Den nyestetiska rörelsen inom pedagogiken i England och USA [The new

aesthetics movement of education in England and Sweden]. Stockholm Institute of Education

Press (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, 5)

Elsner, Catharina (2000). Så tänker lärare i estetiska ämnen [How teachers in the arts think].

Häften for didaktiska studier, No. 70/71. Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag).

Ericsson, Claes & Lindgren, Monica (2007). En start för tänket, en bit på väg. Analys av ett utveck-

lingsprojekt kring kultur och estetik i skolan [Starting to think, slightly on the way. Analysis of

a project about culture and aesthetics in school]. Karlstad: Region Värmland.

Eriksson, Yvonne & Göthlund, Anette (2004). Möten med bilder: analys och tolkning av visuella

uttryck [Meeting pictures: analysis and interpretation of visual expressions]. Lund: Student-

litteratur.

Frid, Johan (2002). Intro – bild: skapa, kommunicera, förstå [Intro – Visual arts: Creating, com-

municating, understanding]. Malmö: Didactica.

Hansson, Hasse, Karlsson, Sten-Gösta & Nordström, Gert Z (2006). Seendets språk – exempel

från konst, reklam, nyhetsförmedling och semiotisk teori [The language of seeing – examples

from art, advertisment, communications of news and semiotic theory]. Lund: Student-

litteratur.

Hartman, Per (2003). Att bilda med bild: en studie av de praktisk-estetiska studiecirklarnas utveck-

ling [Educating through art: on the development of study circles in art & design]. Linköping

University, Institutionen för beteendevetenskap, No. 233.

Hemlin, Egon (Ed.). (1999). Kultur och kreativitet i lärarutbildningen [Culture and creativity in

teacher education]. Stockholm: Gidlund.

Hemlin, Egon (Ed.). (2001). Förståelse och inlevelse i lärandet: rapport från ett seminarium om

konstens och kulturens roll i skola och lärarutbildning [Understanding and engagement in lear-

ning: Report from a seminar on the role of art and culture in school and in teachers’ educa-

tion]. Hedemora: Gidlund i samarbete med Riksbankens jubileumsfond.

Hjort, Madeleine (Ed.). (2002). Kilskrift: om konstarter och matematik i lärandet, en antologi [The

KIL Project: about arts and mathemetics in learning, an anthology]. Stockholm: Carlsson.

Hjort, Madeleine (2001). Konstarter och kunskap [Arts and knowledge]. Stockholm: Carlsson.

Karlsson, Sten-Gösta & Lövgren, Staff an (2001). Bilder i skolan [Pictures in school]. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Kennedy, Birgitta (1999). Glasfåglar i molnen [Glass-birds in the clouds]. Stockholm Institute of

Education (HLS Förlag).

Landqvist, Jan (2001). Vilda idéer och djuplodande analys: om designmetodikens grunder, 2nd ed.

[Wild ideas and deep analysis: On basic methodology of design]. Stockholm: Institutionen

för industridesign, Konstfack/Carlsson.

Lind, Ulla & Borhagen, Kerstin (2000). Perspektiv på Kultur för lust och lärande [Perspective on

culture for pleasure and learning]. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Lind, Ulla & Åsén, Gunnar (Eds.). (1999). En annan skola. Elevers bilder av skolan som kunskaps-

rum och social arena [A diff erent school. Students’ pictures of school as a room for knowl-

edge and social arena]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

APPENDIX 1


Lindberg, Stefan F. (2006). Det fotografi ska bildspråket [The pictorial language of photography].

Malmö: Liber.

Lindberg, Viveca & Borg, Kajsa (2008). Kunskapande, kommunikation och bedömning i gestaltande

utbildning [Creating, communicating and assessing knowing in the making disciplines].

Stockholms universitets förlag. (Festschrift for Lars Lindström)

Linder, Anders (2007). Concenterteckning – en projektiv metod [Concenter drawing – a projective

method]. Stockholm: Proprius.

Lindqvist, Gunilla (1999). Vygotskij och skolan [Vygotsky and school]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (1998). Nordic Visual arts research: A theoretical and methodological review.

Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum

Studies, Vol. 2)

Lindström, Lars (Ed.). (2000). The cultural context: comparative studies of art education and chil-

dren’s drawings. Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag). (Stockholm Library

of Curriculum Studies 7)

Lindström, Lars, Ulriksson, Leif & Elsner, Catarina (1999). Portföljvärdering av elevers skapande i

bild [Portfolio assessment of students’ creativity in the visual arts]. Stockholm: The National

Agency for Education/Liber Distribution. (Skolverket US 98) – An English edition, under

the title Assessing Creativity, is forthcoming.

Lundgren, Ulf P (Ed.). (2006). Uttryck, intryck, avtryck - lärande, estetiska uttrycksformer och

forskning [Expression, impression, imprints – Learning, aesthetic forms of expression, and

research]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. (Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 4:2006)

Löfstedt, Ulla (1999). Bildskapande verksamhet i förskolan [Creative art activities in preschool].

Jönköping University, Jönköping University Press. (Licentiate thesis)

Löfstedt, Ulla (2004). Barns bildskapande: teoretiska perspektiv och didaktiska konsekvenser

[Children’s art creating: Theoretical perspectives and didactic consequences]. Jönköping

University Press.

Malmquist, Karin & Hausswolff , Annick von (1999). Konst är konst, allt annat är allt annat: en

skrift om samtidskonst för lärare [Art is art, everything else is everything else]. Stockholm:

Lärarförbundet.

Malmquist, Karin & Olof-Ors, Matilda (Eds.). (2005). Samtidskonst för lärare och andra intresserade

[Contemporary art for teachers and other interested]. Stockholm: Lärarförbundets förlag.

Malmström, Elisabet (2006). Estetisk pedagogik och lärande. Processer i bildskapandet, delaktighet

och erkännande [Aesthetic pedagogy and learning. Processes in pictoral activities, participation

and acknowledgement]. Stockholm: Carlssons.


och sociokulturellt perspektiv [Meetings & mediations – Aesthetic subject matter and learning

processes in a semiotic and sociocultural perspective]. Fakulteten för lärarutbildning, Umeå

University. (Monografi er, Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning)

Marner, Anders & Örtegren, Hans (2003). En kulturskola för alla - estetiska ämnen och läroprocesser

i ett mediespecifi kt och medieneutralt perspektiv [A culture school for all - Aestetic subject matter

and learning processes in a medium specifi c and medium neutral perspective]. Forskning i

fokus, No. 16. Myndigheten för skolutveckling/Liber.

APPENDIX 1



grundskolan 2003 (NU-03) – Ämnesrapport i Bild [National evaluation of the compulsory

school in 2003. The report of visual arts]. Rapport 253. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Molander, Bengt (Ed.). (1995). Mellan konst och vetande: texter om vetenskap, konst och gestaltning

[In between art and knowing: texts on science, art and performance]. Göteborg: Daidalos.

Nordenfalk, Katta (1996). Barns bilder och solen lyste blå [Children’s pictures and the blue sun

was shining]. Stockholm: Bergh i samarbete med Moderna museet och Riksutställningar.

Nordström, Gert Z (Ed.). (1996). Rum Relation Retorik [Room Relation Rhetoric]. Stockholm:

Carlssons, 1996.

Nygren-Landgärds, Christina & Borg, Kajsa (Eds.). (2006). Lärandeprocesser genom skapande

arbete i vetenskaplig belysning [Learning processes through creative work from a scientifi c

perspective]. Åbo Akademi University, Faculty of Education, Report No. 21/2006.

Olson, Kristin & Boreson, Cecilia (2004). Medieresor - om medier för pedagoger [Media journeys

– on media for educators]. Stockholm: Utbildningsradion.

Paulsen, Brit (1996). Estetik i förskolan [Aestetics in preschool]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, Asplund Carlsson, Maj, Olsson, Bengt, Pramling, Niklas &

Wallerstedt, Cecilia (2008). Konsten att lära barn estetik. En utvecklingspedagogisk studie

av barns kunnande inom musik, poesi och dans [The art of teaching children aesthetics: A

developmental-pedagogical study of children’s knowing within music, poetry, and dance].


Rönnberg, Margareta (2003). Vad är mediepedagogik? Skolpåverkan på media! [What is media

education? School aff ecting media!]. Uppsala: Filmförlaget.

Saar, Tomas (2005). Konstens metoder och skolans träningslogik [The methods of Art and school’s

logic of training]. Karlstad University. (Karlstad University Studies 2005:28)

Sandström, Sven (1996). Intuition och åskådlighet [Intuition and visibility]. Stockholm: Carlsson.

Skoglund, Elisabet (2005). Konstsamtal, samtalskonst [Art conversations, the art of conversation].

Stockholm: Cura.

Skolverket (1999). Läroplanerna i praktiken: utvärdering av skolan 1998 avseende läroplanernas

mål [Curricula in practice: evaluation of the school in 1998, as regards curricular goals].

Skolverkets rapport nr 175.

Skolverket (1999). Utvärdering av fem gymnasieprogram [inkl. Estetiska programmet] 1998:

huvudrapport [Evaluation of fi ve programmes [incl. the Aesthetic programme] in upper

secondary school in 1998]. Skolverkets rapport nr 163.

Skolverket (2004). Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2000: sammanfattande huvudrap-

port [National evaluation of the compulsory school in 2003: summary of main results].

Skol verkets rapport nr 250.

Sparrman, Anna (2006). Barns visuella kulturer – skolplanscher och idolbilder [Children’s visual

cultures –educational posters and star portraits]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Sparrman, Anna, Torell, Ulrika & Åhrén Snickare, Eva (Eds.). (2003). Visuella spår: bilder

i kultur- och samhällsanalys [Visual signs: images in cultural and social studies]. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

APPENDIX 1


Sundin, Bertil (2003). Estetik och pedagogik: i dynamisk balans? [Aesthetics and education: in

dynamic balance?]. Stockholm: Mareld.

Wallin, Karin (1996). Reggio Emilia och de hundra språken [Reggio Emilia and the hundred lang-

uages]. Stockholm: Liber.

Wester, Kristina, Lansfj ord, Mona & Wiklund, Ulla (Eds.). (2003). Faktisk fantasi – barns

språkutveckling genom skapande [Factual imagination: children’s language development

through creative activities]. Stockholm: Myndigheten för skolutveckling.

Wetterholm, Hans (1999). En bildpedagogisk studie, 1, Lärare undervisar [A study of Art education,

1, Teachers are teaching]. Malmö: Lärarhögskolan. (Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem, 657)

Wiklund, Ulla (2001). Den lydiga kreativiteten: om barn, estetik och lärande [The obedient creativity:

on children, aesthetics and learning]. Stockholm: Utbildningsradion.

Åberg, Ann & Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi (2005). Lyssnandets pedagogik [The pedagogy of listening].

Stockholm: Liber.

Öhman-Gullberg, Lisa (2006). Movere. Att sätta kunskap i rörelse. En analys av ett ämnesintegrerat

arbete i bild och samhällskunskap [Movere. To get knowledge on the move. Analysis of an

integrated project in visual arts education and social science]. Malmö Högskola. (Licentiate

thesis)

ChaptersAronsson, Karin (2001). Fyrfota ankor, huvudfotingar och andra barnsliga fi gurer [Four-feet

ducks, stick fi gures and other childish characters]. In M. Sörensson (Ed.), För de allra små

(pp. 126-137). Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.

Aronsson, Karin (2008). Bildetnografi och barnperspektiv: Simonnes bildbiografi [Visual

ethnography and the perspective of the child: Simonne’s pictorial biography]. In V. Lindberg

& K. Borg (Eds.), Kunskapande, kommunikation och bedömning i gestaltande utbildning (pp. 13-20).

Stockholm: Stockholms universitets förlag.

Aronsson, Karin & Junge, Barbara (2000). Intellectual realism and social scaling in Ethiopian

children’s drawings. In L. Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context: comparative studies of art

education and children’s drawings (pp. 135-139). Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS

Förlag). (Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 7)

Becker, Karin (2001). En bildlärarutbildning för 2000-talets skola: utmaningar och förnyelseförsök

[Visual art teachers’ education for the 21st century: Challenges and attempts of renewal]. In

E. Hemlin (Ed.), Förståelse och inlevelse i lärandet: rapport från ett seminarium om konstens

och kulturens roll i skola och lärarutbildning (pp. 20-27). Hedemora: Gidlund i samarbete med

Riksbankens jubileumsfond.

Berg-Marklund, Maria & Berg, Rabert (1996). Art is thought. In R. Berg & M. Campart (Eds.),

Methods of art as paths to knowledge (pp. 149-161). Centrum för didaktik vid Lunds Universitet

skriftserie 1/1996, Malmö School of Education.

Carlsson, Ingegerd (2004). Kreativitet i skolans värld: klimat, ledarskap och det kreativa barnet

[Creativity in the world of school: climat, leadership and the creative child]. In Nära gränsen?

Perspektiv på skolans arbetsliv (pp. 257-286). Malmö: Arbetslivsinstitutet.

APPENDIX 1


Hasselberg, Kersti (1999). I kunskapens vardagsrum: bilder av det pedagogiska rummet [In the

livingroom of knowledge: pictures of the room of pedagogy]. In U. Lind & G. Åsén (Eds.),

En annan skola (pp. 53-80). Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

Helander, Karin (2001). Hundra år av småbarnskonst [A hundred years of toddlers’ art]. In M.

Sörensson (Ed.), För de allra små (pp. 141-157). Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.

Jonsson, Carin. (2004). Reading picture and drawing text. In G.-M. Frånberg & G. Ladson-

Billings (Eds.), Monographs on Journal of Research in Teacher Education. Teacher education

and international collaboration; its strength and challenges (pp. 63-78). Umeå University, The

Faculty Board of Education.

Jönsson, Lena (1999). Skoltid. Om tid i elevers bilder av skolan [Schooltime. About time in chil-

dren’s pictures of school]. In U. Lind & G. Åsén (Eds.), En annan skola (pp. 31-52). Stockholm:

HLS Förlag.

Kühlhorn, Britt-Marie (1999). Skolmiljön och den pedagogiska rekvisitan [School environment

and the pedagogic props]. In U. Lind & G. Åsén (Eds.), En annan skola (pp. 81-100). Stockholm:

HLS Förlag.

Kühlhorn, Britt-Marie (2002). Gestaltning och vetande i bildpedagogiken [Performance and

knowing in Visual arts education]. In M. Hjort (Ed.), Kilskrift: om konstarter och matematik i

lärandet. Stockholm: Carlsson.

Lind, Ulla (1999). Kön, kontroll och kropp: bilder av skolan som genuspraktik [Gender, control

and body: pictures of school as a gender practice]. In U. Lind & G. Åsén (Eds.), En annan

skola (pp. 101-128). Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

Lind, Ulla & Åsén, Gunnar (1999). Bilden som kunskapsbärare [Pictures as knowledge carriers].

In U. Lind & G. Åsén (Eds.), En annan skola (pp. 7-18). Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

Lindstrand, Fredrik (2008). Didaktisk design i ungdomars berättande med fi lm [Didactic

design in youths storytelling with fi lm]. In A.-L. Rostvall & S. Selander (Eds.), Design för

lärande (pp. 203-216). Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska.

Lindström, Lars (1998). Kuvaliisen tuottamisen arviontikriteerit (ruotsalainen kokeilu) /

Kriterier för värdering av bildskapande (ett svenskt försök) [Criteria for evaluation of

picture-making (a Swedish trial)]. In E. Korkeakoski (Ed.), Lasten ja nuorten taidekasvatuksen

tuloksellisuus (pp. 33-66). Helsingfors: Opetushallitus/Utbildnings styrelsen.

Lindström, Lars (2000). Family vs. peers: Themes in Mongolian and Cuban children’s visual

narratives. In L. Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context. Comparative studies of art education

and children’s drawings (pp. 179-206). Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag).

(Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 7)

Lindström, Lars (2002). Produkt- och processvärdering i skapande verksamhet [Assessment

of products and processes in creative activities]. In Att bedöma eller döma (pp. 109-124).

Stockholm: Skolverket.

Lindström, Lars (2002). Att lära genom konsten. En forskningsöversikt [Learning through

Art. A research review]. In M. Hjort (Ed.), Kilskrift: om konstarter och matematik i lärandet.

(pp. 106-131). Stockholm: Carlsson.

APPENDIX 1


Lindström, Lars (2005). Portföljmetodik i estetiska ämnen [Portfolios in arts education]. In

L. Lindström & V. Lindberg (Eds.), (2005). Pedagogisk bedömning (pp. 159-192). Stockholm

Institute of Education Press (HLS Förlag).

Lindström, Lars (2006). Bildvärld och världsbild: Comenius, Basedow och Lidman [World of

pictures and pictures of the world: Comenius, Basedow and Lidman]. In J. A. Comenius,

Orbis Sensualium Pictus (pp. 392-414). Ed. L. Lindström. Stockholm Institute of Education

Press (HLS Förlag).

Lindström Lars (2007). Assessment and professional development. In L. Bresler (Ed.), Inter-

national Handbook of Research in Arts Education (pp. 443-444). Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer.

Lindström Lars (2007). Swedish questions about creativity in visual arts. In L. Bresler (Ed.),

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education (pp. 1195-1198). Dordrecht, Neth.:

Springer.

Lindström, Lars (2007). Kriterien zur Bewertung der kreativen Fähigkeiten von Schülern in

den Bildenden Künsten [Criteria for assessment of students’ creativity in the visual arts]. In

R. Niehoff & R. Wenrich (Eds.), Denken und Lernen mit Bildern. Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur

Ästhetischen Bildung (pp. 162-186). München: Kopaed. (Kontext Kunstpädagogik, Bd. 12)

Lindström, Lars (2007). Assessing craft and design: Conceptions of expertise in education and

work. In A. Havnes & L. McDowell (Eds.), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in

contemporary education (pp. 61-72). London: Routledge.

Lindström, Lars (2008). Intuitionens roll i estetiska läroprocesser [The role of intuition in

aestetic learning]. In K. Borg & L. Lindström (Eds.), Slöjda för livet – om pedagogisk slöjd

(pp. 129-144). Stockholm: Lärarförbundets Förlag.

Lindström, Lars (2008). Produkt- und Prozessbewertung schöpferischer Tätigkeit [Assessment

of products and processes in creative activities]. In G. Peez (Ed.), Beurteilen und Bewerten im

Kunstunterricht (pp. 144-159). Seelze-Velber, Ger.: Klett/Kallmeyer.

Lindström, Lars, Arnegård, Johan & Ulriksson, Leif (2003). Tonåringars upplevelse och prestation

i skolan – en fråga om klassbakgrund? [Teenagers’ experience and performance in school – A

matter of social background?]. In A. Persson (Ed.), Skolkulturer (pp. 71-100). Lund: Student-

litteratur.

Lövgren, Staff an & Karlsson, Sten-Gösta (1998). From art making to visual communication.

In K. J. Freedman & F. Hernández (Eds.), Curriculum, culture and art education (pp. 91-106).

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Midbjer, Anita (2006). Skapande processer i Arne Isacssons konstpedagogiska undervisning

[Creative processes in Arne Isacsson’s art education]. In C. Nygren-Landgärds & K. Borg

(Eds.), Lärandeprocesser genom skapande arbete i vetenskaplig belysning (pp. 144-161). Åbo

Akademi University, Faculty of Education, Report No. 21/2006.

Nordin-Hultman, Elisabeth (1996). Rummets budskap till barnet [The message of the room

to the child]. In Modern barndom – miljö och material (pp. 16-17). Stockholm: Reggio Emilia

Institutet (REI).

APPENDIX 1


Saar, Tomas (2003). Skolans träningslogik och de estetiska kunskapssystemen [The school’s

logic of training and the aesthetic systems of knowledge]. In G. Fransson, Å. Morberg, R.

Nilsson & B. Schüllerqvist (Eds.), Didaktikens mångfald (pp. 294-305). Gävle University

College, Lärarutbildningens skriftserie, No. 1.

Simonsson, Maria (2002). Bilderboken som utgångspunkt för olika lek på förskolan [Picture

books as a starter of diff erent kinds of play in the preschool]. In I. Pramling Samuelsson

(Ed.), Lek och lärande (pp. 27-59). Göteborg University, institutionen för pedagogik och

didaktik, rapport 2002:04.


school. Some views on the state of the art of research]. In L. Aulin-Gråhamn (Ed.), Kultur,

estetik och skola. Några forskningsperspektiv (pp. 43-66). Malmö University College, Lärarut-

bildningen. (Rapporter om utbildning, 2002:9)

Thavenius, Jan (2004). Den modesta estetiken [The modest aesthetics]. In L. Aulin-Gråhamn,

M. Persson & J. Thavenius (Eds.), Skolan och den radikala estetiken (pp. 65-95). Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Åsén, Gunnar (1998). Ett ämne före sin tid: Teckning [A subject matter ahead of its time:

Drawing]. In E. B. Johnsen et al. (Eds.), Kunskapens texter. Jakten på den goda läroboken. Oslo,

Norw.: Universitetsforlaget.

Åsén, Gunnar (1999). Elevers bilder av skolan – en utvärdering ur elevperspektiv [Students’

picture of school – assessment from a student perspective]. In U. Lind & G. Åsén (Eds.), En

annan skola (pp. 19-30). Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

Åsén, Gunnar (2006). Varför bild i skolan? – en historisk tillbakablick på argument för ett

marginaliserat skolämne [Why Visual arts in school? A historical review of arguments for

a marginalised subject matter in school]. In U. P Lundgren (Ed.), Uttryck, intryck, avtryck

- lärande, estetiska uttrycksformer och forskning (Vol. 4:2006). Uppsala/Stockholm: Uppsala

universitet/Vetensapsrådet.

Änggård, Eva (2002). Ett barnperspektiv på barns bildskapande på förskolan [A child per-

spective on children’s creative art in preschool]. In I. Pramling Samuelsson (Ed.), Lek och

läran de (pp. 61-87). Göteborg University, institutionen för pedagogik och didaktik, rapport

2002:04.

Öhman-Gullberg, Lisa (2008). Ska vi skriva, vi har ju bild? [Are we supposed to write, isn’t

this visual arts?]. In A.-L. Rostvall & S. Selander (Eds.), Design för lärande (pp. 217-228).


ArticlesAlexandersson, Mikael (2007). Släpp taget om traditionerna [Let go of the traditions]. (Intervju

utförd av Katarina Josephsson). Fotnoten, No. 2.


life: A cultural comparative analysis of children’s drawings in Africa and Sweden. British

Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, pp. 301-314.

APPENDIX 1


Becker, Karin (2004). Perspectives for the study of visual culture. Nordisk Pedagogik, 24(4),

pp. 242-249.

Borg, Kajsa (2007). Akademisering – en väg till ökad professionalism i läraryrket? [Turning

academic – A way to increase professionalism in the teacher profession?]. Pedagogisk Forskning

i Sverige, 12(3), pp. 211-225.

Dahlman, Ylva (2007). Towards a theory that links experience in the Arts with the acquisition

of knowledge. Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(3), pp. 274-284.

Edström, Ann-Mari (2006). Att forska om lärande i konst [Research on learning in Art]. Peda-

gogisk forskning i Sverige, 11(3), pp. 195-213.

Jonsson, Carin (2001). Barnbildens livfulla vinkande [The child picture’s vivid waving]. Tid-

skrift för lärarutbildning och forskning, No. 4, pp. 11-26. Umeå University, Fakultetsnämnden

för lärarutbildning.

Jonsson, Carin (2002). Barns tidiga textskapande genom bild och text [Children’s early text

creation with the use of pictures and text]. Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning, No. 1-2,

pp. 23-38. Umeå universitet, Fakultetsnämnden för lärarutbildning.

Lindström, Lars (1995). Budskap i barns bilder [Messages in children’s pictures]. Bild i skolan,

(2), pp. 35-43.

Lindström, Lars (1995). Ger bildundervisning resultat? [Does teaching of the visual arts make a

diff erence?]. Bild i skolan, No. 4, pp. 33-37.

Lindström, Lars (1997). Integration, creativity, or communication? Paradigm shifts and conti-

nuity in Swedish Art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 99(1), pp. 17-24.

Lindström, Lars (2005). Att värdera kreativitet. Kompetensutveckling genom kollegial med-

bedömning [Assessing creativity. Staff development through colleagial co-assessment].

Didaktikens Forum, 2(3), pp. 7-26.

Lindström, Lars (2005). The multiple uses of portfolio assessment. Studies in Educational Policy

and Educational Philosophy (E-journal), No. 1, 15 pp.

Lindström, Lars (2006). Creativity: What is it? Can you assess it? Can it be taught? The Inter-

national Journal of Art & Design Education (JADE), 25(1), pp. 53-66.

Lindström, Lars (2007). Kan kreativitet läras ut? En bildpedagogisk översikt [Can creativity be

taught? A review of visual arts education]. EDUCARE 2007:1, pp. 6-33.

Marner, Anders (2000). Bildundervisning och kreativitet [Visual arts education and creativity].

Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning, No. 2/3, pp. 103-114.

Marner, Anders (2006). Estetiska läroprocesser och/eller estetiska ämnen? [Aesthetic learning

processes and/or aesthetic subject matter?] Bild i skolan, No. 4, pp. 6-8.

Marner, Anders (2008). Kluven identitet i bildlärarkåren [Split identity among visual arts

teachers]. (intervju utförd av Annika Claesdotter). Bild i skolan, No. 1, pp. 6-9.

Ryhammar, Lars & Brolin, Catarina (1999). Creativity research: historical considerations and

main lines of development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), pp. 259-273.

Sparrman, Anna & Aronsson, Karin (2002). Barn, konsumtion och estetik. Pogs – ett spel i

tiden [Children, consumption, and aesthetics. Pogs – a game of our time]. Bild i skolan, No. 3,

pp. 24-28.

APPENDIX 1


ReportsAgélii, Karin (1999). Bland eldsjälar och esteter: en rapport om 40 skolors arbete med bild och

media [Among devotees and aesthetes: a report on the visual arts and media activities of 40

schools]. Stockholm: Skolverket / Liber distribution.

Alexandersson, Mikael (1996). Den konstnärliga blicken: en studie om konstnärers refl ektion [The

artistic view: A study of artists’ refl ections]. Göteborg University, Institutionen för metodik.

Anderberg, Eva (1995). Skapa utifrån kända konstverk [Create from well-known works of art].


Andersson, Fred (1999). Konst mellan bild och musik [Art between imagery and music]. Människan,

konsten och kunskapen 1999 (pp. 14-36). Karlstad universitet, Skapande centrum.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena (2003). Kunskap och kompetens för “Kultur i skolan” [Knowlegde and

competence for “Culture in school”]. Rapporter om utbildning, No. 6/2003. Malmö University

College, Lärarutbildningen.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena, Andersson, Lars Gustaf & Thavenius, Jan (2002). Kultur, estetik och skola.

Några forskningsperspektiv [Culture, aesthetics, and school. Some research perspectives].

Delrapport från utredningen Kultur och skola. Rapporter om utbildning, No. 9/2002.

Malmö University College, Lärarutbildningen.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena, Lindholm, Tommy & Viklund, Klas (2002). Pyttesmå ändringar – radikala

scenbyten [Tiny modifi cations – radical shiftings of scenary]. Rapporter om utbildning, No.

1/2002. Malmö University College, Lärarutbildningen.

Aulin-Gråhamn, Lena & Sjöholm, Carina (2003). Vad sägs om “Kultur i skolan”? [What about

“Culture in school”?]. Rapporter om utbildning, No. 3/2003. Malmö University College,

Lärarutbildningen.

Becker, Karin (2003). Visual culture and esthetic learning strategies: a report from a research and

development project 2001-2003 at Konstfack. University College of Arts, Crafts and Design,

Department of art education, Stockholm.

Danielsson, Helena (1998). Videon som språk och kommunikation: barn och unga skapar med video

i skolan [The video as language and communication: Children and youngsters create by

using video in school]. Stockholms universitet, Pedagogiska institutionen. (Licentiate thesis)

Eklund, Stig (1996). Bildpedagogiska samtal. Några lärdas syn på grundskolans obligatoriska

undervisning [A conversation about visual arts education. Some educated views on com-

prehnsive education]. Rapport C-nivå. Umeå universitet, Pedagogiska institutionen.

Eklund, Stig (2002). Från teckning till pedagogiskt arbete i bild [From Drawing to pedagogical

praxis in Visual arts education]. Monographs on Journal of research inteacher deucation,

Umeå University.

Hansson, Hasse & Sommansson, Agneta (1998). Kulturens asplöv [The leaf of culture]. Stockholm:

Arbetsgruppen Kultur i skolan, Swedish Ministry of Cultural Aff airs.

Henriksson, Widar & Eklund Stig (1995). Bilduppfattning. Granskning av en mätprocedur samt

ämnesteoretisk värdering av procedurens resultat [Picture perception. Assessment of a measuring

procedure and a disciplinary evaluation of the results]. Rapport No. 3/1995. Umeå universitet.

Institutionen för estetiska ämnen.

APPENDIX 1


Jammeh, Lena (1998). Bildämnets placering på schemat [Visual arts education on the timetable].

Rapporter om utbildning, No. 2. Lärarhögskolan i Malmö, Regionalt utvecklingscentrum.

Keller, Mona & Svensson, Mayyi (1996). Barnskolan i Skurup: elevernas bildspråk, en jämförande

studie [“Child school” in Skurup: a comparative study of pupils’ pictures]. Institutionen för

pedagogik och specialmetodik, Lärarhögskolan, Lunds universitet.

Klenell, Ingalena (1997). Mod att skapa [Courage to create]. Människan, konsten och kunskapen

1997 (pp. 6-25). Karlstad universitet, Skapande centrum.

Lind, Ulla & Hasselberg, Kersti (Eds.), (2004). 4 dagar 2003: konstnärlig forskning & estetiska

läroprocesser [4 days 2003: artistic research and aestetic learning]. Institutionen för bildpeda-

gogik, Rapport nr 4/2004. Stockholm: University College of Arts, Crafts and Design.

Lindahl, Ingrid (1998). Från andligt skapande till färdighetsträning: en studie av bild och form i

ett förskolehistoriskt perspektiv [From spiritual creation to training skills: a study of picture

and form in a historical preschool perspective]. Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem, No. 647.

Institutionen för pedagogik och specialmetodik, Lärarhögskolan, Malmö högskola.

Lindqvist, Gunilla (1996). Från konstens psykologi till en allmän teori om tänkandet: om utvecklingen

av Vygotskijs kulturhistoriska teori [From the psychology of art to a comprehensive theory of

thinking: Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory]. Människan, konsten och kunskapen 1996

(pp. 30 ff .). Karlstad universitet, Skapande centrum.

Lindqvist, Gunilla (1999). Estetik och rationalitet [Aesthetics and rationality]. Människan, konsten

och kunskapen 1999 (pp. 26 ff .). Karlstad universitet, Skapande centrum.

Malmström, Elisabet (2002). Bilder för en annan skola. Temat vuxnas lärande och kunskapsbildning

[Pictures for another school. Adult learning and knowledge formation]. No. 6. University

College of Kristianstad.

Malmström, Elisabet (2002). Kommunikation och identitet: om bild och pedagogik i ett sociokulturellt

perspektiv [Communication and identity: On Visual arts and education in a sociocultural

perspective]. Temat Vuxnas Lärande och Kunskapsbildning, No. 3. University College of

Kristianstad.

Marner, Anders (Ed.), (1997). Rapport från CD-semiotiskt: semiotik och moderna medier i bildämnet

[Report from CD-semiotics: Semiotics and modern media in Visual arts education]. No. 6.

Institutionen för estetiska ämnen i lärarutbildningen.

Marner, Anders & Örtegren, Hans (2005). Bildämnet i en kulturskola för alla. Grundskolans ämnen

i ljuset av Nationella utvärderingen 2003 [Visual arts education in a cultural school for all.

Compulsory school subjects in the light of the national evaluation in 2003]. Nuläge och

framåtblickar. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Marner, Anders & Örtegren, Hans (2008). Evaluation of the International Fantasy Design Project.

Utvärdering av ett samtida konstprojekt. Report No. 10/2008. Umeå: Institutionen för estetiska

ämnen, Umeå universitet.

Nelson, Cecilia (1996). Konst för barn – vad skall det vara bra för? [Art for children – What’s

the point?]. Människan, konsten och kunskapen 1996 (pp. 26-29). Karlstad universitet,

Skapande centrum.

APPENDIX 1


Persson, Magnus & Thavenius, Jan (2003). Skolan och den radikala estetiken [School and the

radical aesthetics]. Rapporter om utbildning, No. 1/2003. Malmö University College, Lärar-

utbildningen.

Rehnberg, Jonas (1999). Från analog till digital bild: bildskapande i skolan med datorn som verktyg

[From analogue to digital picture – Creating pictures in school with the computer as a tool].

Människan, konsten och kunskapen 1999 (pp. 6-20). Karlstad universitet, Skapande centrum.

Skoog, Eva [now Eva Änggård] (1998). Hur arbetar förskollärare med bild? En studie av fem för-

skollärare som leder barn i bildaktiviteter [How do preschool teachers work with creative art?

A study of fi ve preschool teachers guiding children in visual arts activities]. Linköping Uni-

versity, Linköping Studies in Art and Science. (Licentiate thesis)

Söderlind-Ericson, Carin (2001). Att skapa upplevelse [To create an experience]. Människan,

konsten och kunskapen 2001 (pp. 34-36). Karlstad universitet, Skapande centrum.

Thavenius, Jan (2002). Den goda kulturen och det fria skapandet: Diskurser om “Kultur i skolan”

[The nice culture and the free creative expression: Discourses of “The culture in school”].

Rapporter om utbildning, No. 13/2002. Lärarutbildningen.

Trondman, Mats (1996). Kultur i skolan 1986 – 1991: analys och problematiseringar [Culture in

schools 1986 – 1991: analysis and problem fi nding]. Centrum för kulturforskning, Högskolan

i Växjö.

Udd, Elisabet & Sandberg, Eva-Lotta (2007). Vadå samtidskonst? [Contemporary art – what

is that?]. [Elektronisk resurs]: introduktion till samtidskonst för lärare. Utg. av Göteborgs

konsthall.

Örtegren, Hans (2004). Behövs konstpedagogiken? En utvärdering av konstpedagogiskt seminarium

[Do we need art education? An evaluation of art pedagogical seminar]. Stockholm: Statens

kulturråd.

Örtegren, Hans (2004). Konstpedagogiskt utvecklingsprojekt i Gävleborgs Län vid Länsmuseet

Gävleborg 2001–2004 [Art educational project in the county of Gävleborg at the county

museum Gävleborg 2001–2004]. Länsmuseet Gävleborg, Rapport No. 05/2004.

APPENDIX 1


APPENDIX 2

Danish Publications 1995–2006

Ph.D. and Doctorate theses

Buhl, Mie (2002). Paradoksal billedpædagogik: variationer i læreruddannelsens billedkunstfag

[Paradoxical visual arts education. Variations in the subject of visual arts in teacher education].

Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (1997). The psychology of art appreciation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum

Press.

Hinnum, Susan (2002). Kampen om virkeligheden. Det iscenesatte handlingsværk som det lod sig

iagttage på den danske billedkunstscene i 1990’erne, perspektiveret på baggrund af de foregående

tredive års internationale kunsttradition [The struggle for reality. The staging action work

that could be observed on the Danish art scene in the 1990s, viewed in the light of the previous

30 years of international art tradition]. Aarhus University.

Illeris, Helene (2002). Billedet, pædagogikken og magten. Positioner, genealogi og postmoderne

optikker i det billedpædagogiske felt [Picture, pedagogy, and power: Positions, genealogy, and

postmodern viewpoints in the fi eld of art education]. Copenhagen: The Danish University

of Education.

Juncker, Beth (2006). Om processen. En forskningsfortælling om det æstetiskes betydning i børns kultur

[On the process. The meaning of aesthetics in children’s culture]. Copenhagen: Tiderne

Skifter.

Pedersen, Kristian (1999). Bo’s Billedbog – en drengs billedmæssige socialisation [Bo’s pictorial

socialization – and some reconstructive ideas about the theory of children’s pictorial acts

and the theory of pictorial art education]. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (1995). Medier på begyndertrinnet – i et mediedidaktisk perspektiv [Media

education in an Educational Perspective]. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educa-

tional Studies.

Tufte, Birgitte (1995). Skole og medier. Byggesæt til de levende billeders pædagogik [School and

Media – a Construction Kit for the Pedagogy of moving Images]. Copenhagen: The Royal

Danish School of Educational Studies.


BooksArvedsen, Karsten & Illeris, Helene (Eds.). (2000). Samtidskunst og undervisning – en antologi

[Contemporary art and education – an anthology] (Vol. 6). Copenhagen: The Danish


Austring, Bennyé D. & Sørensen, Merete (2006). Æstetik og læring. Grundbog om æstetiske

læreprocesser [Aesthetics and learning. The fundamentals of aesthetics learning processes].

Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Buhl, Mie (1999). Det levende billede - den levende krop. Om eksperimenterende video i læreruddan-

nelsens billedkunstundervisning [The moving picture - the moving body. Experimental video

in art teacher education] (Vol. 4). Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educational

Studies. (Billedpædagogiske Studier)

Buhl, Mie (2000). Billedkunst – et “blik” på et læreruddannelsesfag i starten af et nyt århundrede

[Visual arts – a ‘viewpoint’ on teacher education at the beginning of a new millenium] (Vol.

7). Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education. (Billedpædagogiske Studier)

Buhl, Mie (Ed.). (2002). Billeder og multimedier [Images and multimedia]. Frederiksberg: Dans-

klærerforeningen.

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2003). Praktik set i lyset af billed-

kunstfaget [The practice of teaching the visual arts] (Vol. 1). Copenhagen: N Zahle Semi-

narium. (Kamelrefl eksioner – tematiseringer af læreruddannelsens professionssigte)

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2004). Faglighed set i lyset af billed-

kunstfaget [The subject of visual arts from an educational perspective] (Vol. 2). Copenhagen:

The Danish University of Education Press. (Kamelrefl eksioner – tematiseringer af lærerud-

dannelsens professionssigte)

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2005). Eksamen set i lyset af billed-

kunstfaget [Visual arts education and assessment] (Vol. 3). Copenhagen: The Danish University

of Education Press. (Kamelrefl eksioner – tematiseringer af læreruddannelsens professionssigte)

Buhl, Mie & Hemmningsen, Karen (2004). Unges fritidsrelaterede æstetiske medieressourcer i en

pædagogisk kontekst [Young people’s aesthetic media resources in an educational context].

Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education Press.

Christensen, Kirsten Meisner (2000). Billeders forankring i det narrative. Et bidrag til sprog-

liggørelsen af den billedfremstillende virksomhed [Anchoring pictures in the narrative. A

contribution to the articulation of processes of picture production] (Vol. 5). Copenhagen:

The Danish University of Education. (Billedpædagogiske Studier)

Flensborg, Ingelise & Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (1997). Temaer i billedpædagogik [Theme-based

visual arts education). Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads Forlag.

Flensborg, Ingelise & Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (Eds.). (1997). Billeder på begyndertrinnet [Visual

arts in the fi rst years of school]. Frederiksberg: Dansklærerforeningen.


on aesthetical learning processes]. Frederiksberg: Dansklærerforeningen.

APPENDIX 2


Illeris, Helene (1999). Kyklop Kamé. En kulturhistorisk analyse af de kulturelle koder fi re 14-15

årige valgfagselever anvendte ved omtalen af et samtidskunstværk [Cyclops Cameo: A cultural

historical analysis of the cultural codes employed by four 14-15-year-old students on their

encounter with a contemporary work of art] (Vol. 3). Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School

of Education. (Billedpædagogiske Studier)

Illeris, Helene (2002). Billede, pædagogik og magt. Postmoderne optikker i det billedpædagogiske

felt [Picture, pedagogy, and power. Postmodern viewpoints in the fi eld of art education].

Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Kunstpædagogisk forskning og formidling i Norden 1995–2004 [Nordic



Illeris, Helene (Ed.). (2002). Studies in Visual Arts Education. (8). Copenhagen: The Danish


Juncker, Beth (1998). Når barndom bliver kultur. Om børnekulturel æstetik [When childhood

becomes culture. Aesthetics in children’s culture]. Copenhagen: Forum.

Knudsen, Ingrid Sidelmann (1997). Billedsamtaler [Picture conversations]. Frederiksberg:

Dansklærerforeningen.

Müller, Lotte & Nielsen, Anne Maj (1999). Krop og billede [Body and picture]. Frederiksberg:


Nielsen, Anne Maj (1996). Pigebilleder og drengestreger [Girls’ and boys’ pictures]. Frederiksberg:


Nielsen, Hanne Lundgren, Jørgensen, Mette & Illemann, Mette Lise (Eds.). (1999). Formidling

af kunst til børn og unge [Art appreciation education for children and young people]. Århus:

Landsforeningen Børn, Kunst og Billeder.

Pedersen, Kristian (1997). Teorier og temaer i børnebilledforskning [Theories and themes of

research on children’s pictorial activities]. Frederiksberg: Dansklærerforeningen.

Pedersen, Kristian (1999). Æstetiske lære- og billedprocesser. Et bidrag til afklaring af centrale begre-

ber og forståelse vedr. æstetiske lære- og billedprocesser [Aesthetic learning processes in picture

production. A contribution to central conceptions and understandings] (Vol. 1). Copenhagen:

The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies. (Billedpædagogiske Studier)

Pedersen, Kristian (2004). Rekonstruktion af billedpædagogikken [A reconstruction of visual arts

education]. Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education Press.

Pedersen, Martin Brandt (Ed.). (1998). Mediernes æstetiske udfordring [The aesthetical challenge

of the new media]. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.

Seligmann, Tine & Mathiesen, Frants (Eds.). (2004). Mødesteder – Formidling af samtidskunst

[Meeting places – education with contemporary art]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (1996). Lyrisk og eksperimenterende video [Lyrical and experimental

video]. Frederiksberg: Dansklærerforeningen.

Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (Ed.). (1998). Det æstetiske i et dannelsesperspektiv [The aesthetic in

an educational perspective]. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.

APPENDIX 2


ChaptersArvedsen, Karsten (2000). Om at arbejde med fl ere (modstridende) kunstopfattelser i undervis-

ningen og om forskellige problemer samtidskunsten stiller os overfor i formidlingen [How

to work with several (contrasting) art perspectives in education and how to deal with the

diff erent problems contemporary art poses for education]. In K. Arvedsen & H. Illeris (Eds.),

Samtidskunst og undervisning – en antologi (Billedpædagogiske Studier, Vol. 6). Copenhagen:

The Danish University of Education.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2002). Billedkunstfaget og brugen af multimedier i spændingsfeltet mellem

kunsten og den øvrige visuelle kultur [Visual arts education and the use of multimedia in

the zone between arts and other forms of visual culture]. In M. Buhl (Ed.), Billeder og multi-

medier (pp. 42-66). Frederiksberg: Dansklærerforeningen.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2004). Samtidskunst [Contemporary art]. In F. Mathiesen & T. Seligmann

(Eds.), Mødesteder – formidling af samtidskunst (pp. 99-110). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Audon, Lone (2006). Digital Media, Place and Space. In M. Buhl, B. Meyer & B. Holm Sørensen

(Eds.), Media and ICT – learning potentials. Copenhagen: Danish University of Education Press.

Buhl, Mie (2002). Challenges to visual arts education posed by contemporary art. In H. Illeris

(Ed.), Studies in Visual Arts Education, (Vol. 8, pp. 55-92). Copenhagen: The Danish University

of Education.

Buhl, Mie (2006). The aesthetic actualisation of learning potential with media and ICT. In M.

Buhl, B. Meyer & B. Holm Sørensen (Eds.), Media and ICT – learning potentials (pp. 207-225).

Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education Press

Christensen, Per Bak (2000). Pragmatisk æstetik og samtidskunst i undervisningen [Pragmatist

aesthetics and contemprary art in education]. In K. Arvedsen & H. Illeris (Eds.), Samtids-

kunst og undervisning - en antologi (Billedpædagogiske Studier, Vol. 6). Copenhagen: The Danish

University of Education.

Christensen, Per Bak (2004). Digtning og samtidskunst i et læringsperspektiv [Poetry and

contemporary art from a learning perspective]. In F. Mathiesen & T. Seligmann (Eds.),

Mødesteder – formidling af samtidskunst (pp. 79-88). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Flensborg, Ingelise (1996). Streg, form og farve [Line, form, and colour]. In M. Lyster, L. Gredsted

& P.A. Rasmussen (Eds.), Janus 1, skolefag og EDB, årsrapport 1995/96 (pp. 11-18). Copenhagen:

Undervisningsministeriet (The Danish Ministry of Education).

Flensborg, Ingelise (1998). Research-based development work in the visual arts. In L. Lindström

(Ed.), Nordic Visual Arts Research. A Theoretical and Methodological Review (pp. 93-103).


Flensborg, Ingelise (1999). Om børn, billeder og rum [Children, pictures and space]. In P.E. Paagard

& M. Hansen (Ed.), Specialundervisningshåndbog (pp. 85-93). Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2000). Learning environments. In P.-E. Banff , K. Hedegaard & J. Fromberg

(Eds.), BOSTON, report from Boston, Novo Nordisk project. Copenhagen: The Danish Ministry

of Education.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2000). Skolebyggeri og kulturmiljø [School buildings and cultural environ-

ment]. In K. Møller & K. Andersen (Eds.), Min ønskeskole – børn bygger skoler. Copenhagen:

The Municipality of Copenhagen.

APPENDIX 2


Flensborg, Ingelise (2002). Aesthetic perception in graphic user interfaces. In H. Illeris (Ed.),

Studies in visual arts education (Vol. 8, pp. 93-116). Copenhagen: The Danish University of

Education.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2002). Børns billedrepertoirer, de første år i skolen [Children’s pictorial

repertoires in the fi rst years of school]. In E. Kielgast & A. Knudsen (Eds.), De første år i

skolen. En antologi af temaer fra indskolingen. Copenhagen: Billesø og Baltzer.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2006). Local pictures – Global groundings. In M. Buhl, B. Meyer & B. Holm

Sørensen (Eds.), Media and ICT – learning potentials (pp. 111-128). Copenhagen: The Danish


Hansen, Ingerid Bach (2000). Samtidskunstens erkendelsespotentiale – om tegnet, betydnin-

gerne og valget [The experiental potential of contemporary art – on drawing, meaning and

choice]. In K. Arvedsen & H. Illeris (Eds.), Samtidskunst og undervisning – en antologi (Billed-

pædagogiske Studier, Vol. 6). Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.

Hansen, Ingerid Bach (2004). Elever i dialog med værket – hvordan gør vi det? [Students in

dialogue with works of art – how can it be achieved?]. In F. Mathiesen & T. Seligmann (Eds.),

Mødesteder - formidling af samtidskunst (pp. 89-98). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Hansen, Mogens, Petersen, Kristian & Ingelise, Flensborg (1997). Do we use recent fi ndings

from the research into children’s pictorial and aesthetic development? In Forum on Childrens

Culture – 14 Lectures. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.

Illeris, Helene (1999). Mødet med samtidskunsten. Strategier blandt store skolebørn [The

encounter with contemporary art. Strategies among teenagers in school]. In Formidling af

kunst til børn og unge.

Illeris, Helene (2000). Copying – You just aren’t supposed to do that! In L. Lindström (Ed.),

The cultural context. Comparative studies of art education and children’s drawings (pp. 59-71).


Illeris, Helene (2002). The fi eld of visual arts education – and art. In H. Illeris (Ed.), Studies in

visual arts education (Vol. 8, pp. 19-54). Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Det pædagogiske forhold som performance: ritualer og performative

positioner i formidling af kunst på museer [The educational encounter as performance: rituals

and performative positions in museum and gallery education]. In J. Krejsler, N. Kryger & J.

Milner (Eds.), Pædagogisk antropologi. Et fag i tilblivelse (pp. 119-136.). Copenhagen: The Danish


Illeris, Helene (2004). Mødet som kunstværk: valg, iscenesættelse, appropriation [The encounter

as a work of art: choice, staging, appropriation]. In F. Mathiesen & T. Seligmann (Eds.),

Mødesteder – formidling af samtidskunst (pp. 39-48). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Illeris, Helene (2006). Æstetiske læreprocesser i et senmoderne perspektiv [Aesthetic leaning

processes in late modernity]. In U. P Lundgren (Ed.), Uttryck, intryck, avtryck (Vetenskapsrådets

rapportserie, Vol. 4, pp. 81-93). Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

Jensen, Thorkil Borup & Flensborg, Ingelise (1996). Dansk og billedkunst – indtryk og overve-

jelser [Danish and visual arts – impressions and reconsiderations]. In L. Gredsted, M. Lyster

& P. A. Rasmussen (Ed.), Janus 1, skolefag og EDB, årsrapport 1995/96 (pp. 31-55). Copenhagen:

Undervisningsministeriet (The Danish Ministry of Education).

APPENDIX 2


Mathiesen, Frants (2004). Kunstkritik og undervisning [Art critique and education]. In F.

Mathiesen & T. Seligmann (Eds.), Mødesteder – formidling af samtidskunst (pp. 73-78). Fred-

eriksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Nielsen, Anne Maj (1995). Boys’ and girls’ pictures – A study of gender-marking in aesthetics-

based subjects. In Arnesen (Ed.), Gender and equality as quality in school and teacher education.

Final report from the 3-year Nordic projects on gender and equal opportunities in teacher education.

(Vol. A/1995, pp. 42-50). Oslo, Norw.: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Nielsen, Anne Maj (1995). Gender in Children’s Pictures. In Ruotonen et al. (Eds.), Content

and gender: transforming the curriculum in teacher education, series on equal opportunities and

teacher education in Europe (Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE), Vol. 4,

pp. 117-139). Sheffi eld, UK: Pavic publications, Hallam University.

Nielsen, Anne Maj (1998). Empirical research on children’s pictorial activity. In L. Lindström



Nielsen, Anne Maj & Fink-Jensen, Kirsten (2003). Læring og udtryksformer – børn som kultur-

deltagere [Learning and forms of expression – children as cultural participants]. In B. Tufte,

J. Kampmann & M. Hassel (Eds.), Børnekultur – et begreb i bevægelse (pp. 42-63). Copenhagen:

Akademisk Forlag.

Olesen, Dorte & Dinsen, Mette Wergeland (2004). Hvad har Socrates og samtidskunst til fælles?

[What do Socrates and contemporary art have in common?]. In F. Mathiesen & T. Seligmann

(Eds.), Mødesteder – formidling af samtidskunst (pp. 31-38). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Pedersen, Kristian (1998). Art education in a critical-constructive perspective. In L. Lindström

(Ed.), Nordic Visual Arts Research. A Theoretical and Methodological Review. Stockholm Institute

of Education Press.

Pedersen, Kristian (1998). Det æstetiske og formsproglige i lære- og billedprocesser [Form

and aesthetics in learning processes with pictures]. In M. Brandt Pedersen (Ed.), Mediernes

æstetiske udfordring. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.

Pedersen, Kristian (2000). Symbol systems and activities in children’s pictorial culture. In L.

Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context. comparative studies of art education and children’s drawings

(pp. 46-58). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Pedersen, Kristian (2002). Aesthetic learning and pictorial processes. In H. Illeris (Ed.), Studies

in visual arts education (Vol. 8, pp. 117-147). Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.

Riis-Hansen, Ide (2004). Nutidskunst – et påskud for samtale [Contemporary art - an incentive

for discussion]. In F. Mathiesen & T. Seligmann (Eds.), Mødesteder - formidling af samtidskunst

(pp. 21-30). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Seligmann, Tine (2000). Børn og unge i dialog med den utilpassede samtidskunst [Children and

young people in dialogue with the inappropriate contemporary art]. In K. Arvedsen & H.

Illeris (Eds.), Samtidskunst og undervisning – en antologi (Billedpædagogiske Studier, Vol. 6).

Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.

APPENDIX 2


Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (1998). “Wannabe” – mediebrug, identitet og æstetisk praksis [“Wannabe”

– the use of media, identity and aesthetic practice]. In M. Brandt Pedersen (Ed.), Mediernes

æstetiske udfordring - en studie- og debatbog om børn, unge, medier og skole (pp. 9-22). Copenhagen:

The Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.

ArticlesAndersen, Kirsten Bak (1996). Kulturens billeder som inspiration [Cultural pictures as inspira-

tion]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 8-11.

Andersen, Kirsten Bak (2005). Scenen er din! – Relationer mellem kunst og hverdagsliv i billed-

kunstundervisningen [The fl oor is yours! Relations between art and everyday life in visual

arts education]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (2), pp. 6-10.

Andersen, Kirsten Bak (2006). Det var kattens! – Kan samtidskunsten anvendes som inspiration

til den daglige billedkunstundervisning? [Can contemporary art be used as inspiration for

visual arts education?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 12-17.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2000). Kan man udtrykke sig uden at kommunikere? Kan man kommunikere

uden at udtrykke sig? [Can you express yourself without communicating? Can you commu-

nicate without expressing yourself?] Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 17-21.


in the subject of visual arts?]. Praktik och teori (3), pp. 22-32.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2004). På vej: Fra “billedkunst” til “visuel kultur” i billedkunstfaget [From

“art” to “visual culture” in visual arts education]. Stork (2), pp. 15-18.

Arvedsen, Karsten (2005). Hvad skal vi undervise i, når vi underviser med visuel kultur? [What

should we teach when we teach visual culture?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 7-11.

Arvedsen, Karsten & Illeris, Helene (2006). Mellem kunstblik og antroblik – overvejelser fra et

eksperimenterende undervisningsforløb i visuel kultur [Between art-eye and anthro-eye –

an experimental project in visual culture]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 26-29.

Bang-Jensen, Lene (2003). Den internationale dimension i billedkunstundervisningen [The

international dimension of visual arts education]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 2-4.

Bevild, Charlotte (2006). Billedkunstundervisningen i pædagoguddannelsen [Visual arts education

in social educator training programmes]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (2), pp. 14-17.

Bjarne Sode, Funch (1997). The art museum in partnership with schools. Museum International

(194), ppƒƒ. 268-276.

Boye, Marianne (2006). Æstetiske funktioner i folkeskolens rum [Aaesthetical functions in

the rooms and spaces of the Danish primary and lower secondary school]. Billedpædagogisk

Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 12-14.

Brandt, Karen (2003). I Grønland spiser de tarme – om det visuelles medvirken I danske børns

konstruktion af Grønland og grønlændere [In Greenland they eat intestines – the role of the

visual in Danish children’s construction of Greenland and Greenlanders]. Unge Pædagoger,

(7-8), pp. 24-30.

APPENDIX 2


Buhl, Mie (1997). Videointegration i billedkunst [The integration of video in visual arts education].

Billedpædagogiske Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 17-20.

Buhl, Mie (2001). Et blik på billedkunstfaget – debatoplæg [A viewpoint on visual arts education.

A theme for debate]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 6-12.

Buhl, Mie (2003). Billedkunst – faget, der blev væk [Visual arts – the subject that disappeared].

Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (2), pp. 27-29.

Buhl, Mie (2003). Hvem skal jeg nu være? – om unges visuelle selvpræsentationer som multi-

kultur [Who am I now? Students’ self presentations in an educational context]. Unge

Pædagoger, (7-8), pp. 16-23.

Buhl, Mie (2004). Visual culture as a strategy of refl ection in education. Nordisk Pedagogik, (4),

pp. 277-293.

Buhl, Mie (2005). Hvordan kan skolen bruge museerne? [How can schools use museums?]. MID

(13), 21-23.

Buhl, Mie (2005). Visual culture as a strategic approach to art production. International Journal

of Education through Art, 1 (2), pp. 103-114.

Buhl, Mie, Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2006). Som man råber i den grønne

skov får man svar - om evalueringens muligheder og faldgruber i billedkunstfaget [What you

ask for is what you get - the possibilities and pitfalls of assesment in the subject of visual

arts]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 3-7.

Buhl, Mie & Flensborg, Ingelise (2004). Et nyt billedbegreb [A new concept of the picture].


Buhl, Mie, Flensborg, Ingelise & Illeris, Helene (2003). Visuel kultur som ny pædagogisk fagli-

ghed [Visual culture as a new educational approach]. Unge Pædagoger, (7-8), pp. 1-7.

Bøgesvang, Hanne (2006). Tegning [Drawing]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (2), pp. 23-28.

Christensen, Kirsten Meisner (1995). Kan man undervise i oplevelse? Et forsøg med at sætte

fokus på æstetisk erfaringsdannelse [Can experience be taught? An experiment focused on

the formation of aesthetic experiences]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 19-21.

Christensen, Kirsten Meisner, Rasmussen, Helle & Buhl, Mie (2004). Om at undersøge og

refl ektere verden visuelt [About visual investigations and experiences of the world]. Billed-

pædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 6-9.

Christensen, Kirsten Meisner & Skov, Kirsten (2003). Visual Date – om lærerstuderendes brug

af billeder i et elektronisk kommunikationsforløb [Visual date – student teacher’s use of

pictures in electronic communication]. Unge Pædagoger, (7-8), pp. 8-15.

Deleuran, Bjarne (2000). Billedkunst i det nye årtusinde [Visual arts in the new millennium].


Dorf, Hans (2005). Billedpædagogisk dannelse – en grundlagsdiskussion [Visual arts education

– what are the actual foundations?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 28-30.

Flensborg, Ingelise (1997). Visuelle kommunikationsformer i 6. klasse [Visual forms of

communication in year 6]. Janus artikelgalleri. Projekt Janus, skolefag og edb.

Flensborg, Ingelise (1999). Fotografi ske produktioner i sporadisk erindring [Photographic

productions in sporadic recollection]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 6-11.

APPENDIX 2


Flensborg, Ingelise (2002). Genius non-loci. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (2).

Flensborg, Ingelise (2002). Skolegården – en pause i undervisningen – et rum for kommunikation

[The schoolyard – a break from classes – a place for communication]. Undervisnings-

ministeriets tidsskrift Uddannelse (1).

Flensborg, Ingelise (2003). Et blik på klare mål [A viewpoint on “clear goals” in danish primary

and lower secondary education]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (2), pp. 2-6.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2003). Hjemløs geografi [Homeless geography]. Unge Pædagoger, (7/8),

pp. 16-23.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2003). Visuelle repertoirer i NUL til Fjorten [Visual repertoiref in zero to

fourteen]. Dansk Pædagogisk Forum (3), pp. 10-15.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2004). Børn og kunst – kunstnere og børn [Children and art – artists and

children]. BKF - billedkunstnernes blad (1), pp. 22-24.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2004). Visual culture in education. the ex-centric observer and the “break-

down” of aff ordances. Nordisk Pedagogik (4), pp. 268-276.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2005). Syn og synsmåder – det generative blik [Vision and ways of seeing –

the generative gaze]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 20-23.

Flensborg, Ingelise & Witfeldt, Claus (2004). Læremidler, serendipitet og mediespecifi citet

[Teaching media, serendipity and media specifi city]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 20-22.

Fogh, Charlotte (2002). Scenografi er iscenesættelse af fortællinger i rum – ikke kun i teatret

[Scenography is the design of stories in space – not just in the theatre]. Billedpædagogisk


Funch, Bjarne Sode (1996). Den æstetiske oplevelse som transcendent fænomen [The aesthetic

experience as a transcendent phenomenon]. Nordisk Psykologi (48), pp. 214-232.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (1996). Kunstoplevelsens psykologi med fokus på billedkunst [The psychology

of art appreciation with focus on the visual arts]. Nordisk Psykologi (48), pp. 266-278.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (1999). Synsoplevelse og billedkunst: En eksistentiel-fænomenologisk model

[Visual experiences and visual arts: A existential-phenomenological model]. Bulletinen (27),

pp. 8-13.

Funch, Bjarne Sode (2000). Hvorfor ser vi på billedkunst? [Why do we look at visual arts?].

Nordisk Museologi (1), pp. 87-96.

Gille, Sarah (2004). Tænkning, kunst og forståelse [Thinking, art and understanding]. Billed-


Gotfredsen, Lise (1998). Hvad er kunst? Kvalitet eller kategori? [What is art? Quality or

category?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 44-47.

Grøn, Karen (2002). Installationens udfordringer [The art installation as an educational chal-

lenge]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 6-9.

Hansen, Ingerid Bach (2002). Hvorfor kan det gøres anderledes? En diskussion af billed-

kunstfagets fagdidaktik [Why could it be done diff erently? A discussion of didactics in the

visual arts]. Unge Pædagoger, (6), pp. 1-16.

Hansen, Mogens (1995). Menneskebilleder – om spejle, fotografi er og billedkunst [Pictures of

people – on mirroring, photography and visual arts]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 1-8.

APPENDIX 2


Hansen, Mogens (1995). Symboldannelsens tid [The era of the formation of symbols]. Billed-


Hansen, Mogens (1997). Modernisering – om brugen af Kuhn på kunst og mens vi venter på

den næste normalperiode [Modernization – on the use of Kuhn on art and while we are

waiting for the next period of normality]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 20-23.

Hansen, Mogens (1998). Krop, rytme, billeder – om begribelser [Body, rhythm, pictures – on

understanding]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 12-16.

Hansen, Mogens (2000). Billedudtryk – om udvikling og handicap [Pictorial expressions. On

development and disabilities]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 16-20.

Hansen, Mogens (2002). At blive set, at blive synlig [To be seen, to be visible]. Billedpædagogisk


Hansen, Mogens (2005). Uden for alle rammer [Outside every frame]. Billedpædagogisk Tids-

skrift, (1), pp. 6-8.

Henningsen, Lars (2001). Livlige fortællinger i børns legekultur [Lively stories in children’s play

culture]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 2-5.

Henningsen, Lars (2003). Video i Versailles – om “visuelle begivenheder” før, under og efter

videooptagelser [Video in Versailles – visual events before, during and after videorecor-

dings]. Unge Pædagoger, (7-8), pp. 41-49.

Henriksen, Kis (2000). Kunsten at forme et sprog – om læring, udvikling og sprogliggørelse

gennem formsproglige processer [The art of creating language – on learning, development

and articulation through idiomatic processes]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 10-15.

Illeris, Helene (1997). Art is art – everything else is everything else. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift,

(2).

Illeris, Helene (1999). At opleve et kunstværk – kan det læres? Didaktiske overvejelser med

udgangspunkt i “kunstpædagogikkens dilemma” [How to Experience a Work of Art – can it

be learned? Educational Considerations in relation to “the Dilemma of Gallery Education”].

Forskningstidsskrift fra Danmarks Lærerhøjskole (4), pp. 11-38.

Illeris, Helene (1999). Cyclops cameo, exemplary statements of four 14–15-year-old students on

their encounter with a contemporary work of art. Nordisk Museologi, (1), pp. 173-181.

Illeris, Helene (1999). Germinations X. På ungdomsudstilling med Charles Baudelaire, Jürgen

Habermas og Richard Rorty [Generation X. Visiting an exhibition of young artist’s work

with Charles Baudelaire, Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty]. Øjeblikket. Tidsskrift for

visuelle kulturer, 8 (39), pp. 48-52.

Illeris, Helene (1999). I begyndelsen var ...romantikken! [In the beginning was..... Romanticism!].


Illeris, Helene (2000). Det relationelle møde med kunsten – overvejelser om børns møde med

kunstværker i en undervisningssammenhæng [The relational encounter with art – re-

fl ections on educational encounters between children and works of art]. Undervisnings-

ministeriets tidsskrift Uddannelse (3), pp. 40-49.

Illeris, Helene (2000). Møde med et samtidskunstværk [The encounter with a contemporary art

work]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 12-19.

APPENDIX 2


Illeris, Helene (2002). Vad kan man lära av samtidskonsten? Om konstpedagogik och bildningssyn

[What can you learn from contemporary art? Art education and Bildung]. Konstperspektiv

(3), pp. 32-36.

Illeris, Helene (2003). American Pictures – Visuel kultur og postmoderne billedpædagogik

[American Pictures: Visual culture and postmodern art education]. Unge Pædagoger, (7-8),

pp. 50-58.

Illeris, Helene (2003). Dansk billedpædagogisk forskning – et tilbageblik [Danish research in

visual arts education – a view of the past]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 27-28.

Illeris, Helene (2003). Det gode barn og det gode billede. Om dannelse og magt i det billed-

pædagogiske felt [The good child and the good picture: Bildung and power in the fi eld of art

education]. Unge Pædagoger, (5), pp. 23-32.

Illeris, Helene (2003). Performative positioner i kunstpædagogik [Art education in museums

and galleries: Performative positions]. Valör (4), pp. 15-28.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Educations of vision. relational strategies in visual culture. Nordisk Pedagogik,

(4), pp. 250-267.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Från “klassisk bildning” til “visuell kultur” – historiska och aktuella

strömningar i skandinavisk bildpedagogik [From “classical formation” to “visual culture” –

historical and contemporary currents in Scandinavian art education]. Bild i Skolan (09), pp. 9-11.

Illeris, Helene (2004). Med fascination som drivkraft – relationelle møder mellem børn og

kunstværker [Fascination is the drive – relational encounters between children and works

of art]. BIN Nordens tidsskrift, pp. 89-96.

Illeris, Helene (2005). Young people and contemporary art. The International Journal of Art and

Design Education, 24(3), pp. 231-242.

Illeris, Helene (2006). Kunstkammeret som dannelsesritual [Educational Rituals at The Royal

Danish Kunstkammer]. Nordisk Museologi, (1), pp. 59-73.

Illeris, Helene (2006). Museums and galleries as performative sites for lifelong learning.

Museum and Society, 4(1), pp. 15-26.

Illeris, Helene, Buhl, Mie & Flensborg, Ingelise (2003). The Danish Research Unit: Visual

Culture in Education. Insea News, 9 (3), pp. 10-11.

Ingemann, Bruno (2000). Billedbrug i tiden – om de nødvendige kompetencer [Contemporary

use of pictures – about the necessary competences]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 20-25.

Ingemann, Bruno (2003). Det nye billedbegreb: Nye billeder eller nye blikke? [The new picture

concept: New pictures or new eyes?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 15-23.

Jacobsen, Signe (1995). Voksenkunst og børn på Vejle Kunstmuseum [Encounters between children

and art for adults at the Vejle Art Gallery]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 16-17.

Jensen, Bodil Havskov (1995). G.H.Luquet – gammel, men aktuel [G.H.Luquet – old, but still

important]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 10-13.

Jensen, Bodil Havskov (2003). Den forfejlede pædagogik [The mistaken education]. Billed-


Jensen, Per Kjærsgaard (2000). Udviklingshæmmede og æstetisk billedproduktion [Mentally

challenged people and aesthetical picture making]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 6-9.

APPENDIX 2


Jensen, Per Kjærsgaard (2000). Udviklingshæmmede og æstetisk billedproduktion II [Men-

tally challenged people and aesthetical picture making II]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4),

pp. 6-9.

Jeppesen, Sven (1997). Digital videoredigering – hvad er det, hvilke muligheder og hvordan kan

det anvendes? [Digital video editing – what is it, what are its possibilities and how can it be

used?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 2-5.

Jørgensen, Lis (1998). Rids af tegnefagets historie [An outline of the history of drawing as a

school subject]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 48-50.

Kirkeby, Ole Fogh (2006). To sociale grundkapaciteter set i forhold til kunsten [Two basic social

capacities viewed in relation to the visual arts]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (1), pp. 8-9.

Kristensen, Heine Sand (2001). Udsmykning – en teoretisk artikel om en praktisk designopgave

[Decoration – a theoretical article on a practical design task]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift,

(2), pp. 20-25.

Lambertsen, Ole (2002). Installationskunst – hvad kan det være tegn på? [Installation art –

what can it be a sign of?]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 14-15.

Langager, Søren (1997). Projektopgaven – et projekt i sig selv [The project assignment – a

project in itself]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 9-10.

Laursen, Bjørn (2006). Tegning, kognition og innovation – om komplekse tegnekompetencer

[Drawing cognition and innovation – on complex drawing competences]. Billedpædagogisk


Laursen, Ole (1995). Tanker om undervisningsdiff erentiering – og et eksempel fra billedkunst

[Thoughts on educational diff erentiation – and an example from visual arts]. Billedpædagogisk


Laursen, Ole (2000). Billedkunst i fremtiden [Visual arts in the future]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift,

(1), pp. 2-6.

Lund, Lisbeth (2006). Når børn er eksperter – brugertest af en hjemmeside til børn om

J.F.Willumsens kunstneriske produktion [When children are experts – a user test of a website

for children about J.F.Willumsen’s artistic production]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3),

pp. 8-11.

Mathiesen, Frants (2000). Spiser du med kniv eller gaff el? Om billedanalyse og semiotik

[Do you eat with a knife or a fork? On picture analysis and semiotics]. Billedpædagogisk


Müller, Lotte (2003). Genus Loci og performance [Genus Loci and performance]. Billedpædagogisk


Norre, Ellen (2001). Design i skolen – som selvstændigt fag eller som del af billedfaget? [Design

i school – an independent subject or a part of the subject of visual arts?]. Billedpædagogisk


Norre, Ellen (2004). At sætte ord på billeder [Articulating pictures in words]. Billedpædagogisk


Nørgård, Lars (1995). Voksenkunst og børnekunst [Adult art and art for children]. Billedpæda-

gogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 22-24.

APPENDIX 2


Pedersen, Kristian (1998). Aktuelle kendetegn på æstetiske læreprocesser [Current features of

aesthetical learning processes]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 4-8.

Rasmussen, Helle (2005). Kan vi gøre billedkunstundervisningen mere meningsfuld for eleverne?

– om aktuelle og begrundede udfordringer til billedkunstfaget i skolen og på læreruddan-

nelsen [Can we make visual arts education more meaningful to students? Recent challenges

to the subject of Visual Arts in schools and teacher education]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift,

(2), pp. 2-5.

Seligmann, Tine (2002a). En installation skal ikke ses på – men opleves! [An installation should

not be looked at – but experienced!]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (4), pp. 2-5.

Seligmann, Tine (2002b). Knyt sylten når læring er i gang [Shhh! Be quiet – we’re learning!].


Skov, Kirsten (1997). Myter eller virkelighed – projektopgaven i 9. klasse [Myths or reality –

project assignments in year 9]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift, (3), pp. 4-7.

Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (1997). Stemninger og lyrik i video – eksperimenterende produktion

[Atmosphere and poetry in video – experimental production]. Billedpædagogisk Tidsskrift,

(4), pp. 6-10.

Witfelt, Claus (1996). Billedkunsten og teknologien [Visual arts and technology]. Billedpædagogisk


ReportsArvedsen, Karsten & Illeris, Helene (2005). Mellem kunstblik og antroblik. Rapport fra et eksperi-

menterende undervisningsforløb i visuel kultur på læreruddannelsen i billedkunst [Between art-eye

and anthro-eye. Report from an experimental project in visual culture in art teacher education].

Copenhagen: CVU Storkøbenhavns rapportserie.

Bamford, Anne & Qvortrup, Matt (2006). The Ildsjæl in the classroom. A review of Danish arts

education in the Folkeskole. Copenhagen: The Danish Arts Council.

Bøje, Jakob D., Johansen, Thomas Gitz, Kampman, Jan & Larsen, Kirsten (2005). At lære med

samtidskunst. Et pædagogisk projekt og et organisations- og samarbejdsprojekt. Evaluering af

Egmont Fondens forsøgs- og udviklingsprojekt Samtidskunst og Unge 2002-2005 [Learning with

contemporary art. An educational project and an organizational and cooperative project.

Evaluation of The Egmont Foundation’s developing project Contemporary Art and Young

People 2002-2005]. No. 3. Department of Educational Studies, Roskilde University.

Flensborg, Ingelise (1996). Børns bybevidsthed [Children’s urban awareness]. Copenhagen: The

Danish Ministry of Evironment.

Flensborg, Ingelise (1997). Children’s Urban Awareness. Schools Adopts Monuments. Napoli:

Fondation Pégase.

Flensborg, Ingelise (2005). Visuel kultur i læremidler i netværk. Forskningsrapport i tilknytning til

ITMF-Projekt 321 [Visual culture in net-based learning materials, research report, ITMF-

project 321]. The Danish University of Education Press.

APPENDIX 2


Flensborg, Ingelise & Witfeldt, Claus (2004). Rum for oplevelse. Forskningsrapport i tilknytning til

ITMF-Projekt 321 [Room for experience. Research report, ITMF-project 321]. Copenhagen:

The Danish University of Education Press.

Hjort, Katrin & Larsen, Lene (2003). At skabe sig selv. Evaluering af Egmontfondens forsøgs- og

udviklingsprojekt Samtidskunst og unge 2002–2003 [To create yourself. Evaluation of the

Egmont foundation’s developmental project Contemporary art and Young People 2002–

2003]. No. 1. Department of Educational Studies, Roskilde University.

Kirketerp, Kirsten Jordahn (1999). Statusrapport over de danske kunstmuseers formidlingspraksis

1994–1997 [Report on the current state of the educational practices of Danish art galleries

1994–1997]. Unpublished.

Kjærboe, Jette (2000). Formidling til børn og unge på de danske kunstmuseer: en undersøgelse

foretaget på baggrund af Kirsten Jordahn Kirketerps Statusrapport over den danske kunstmuseers

formidlingspraksis 1994–97 [Education for children and young people at Danish art galleries:

a study based on Kirsten Jordahn Kirketerps’s fi nal report about the Danish Art museums’

educational praxis 1994–97]. Copenhagen: Statens Museumsnævn.

Olivera, Ellen de (1998). Åbne døre. Etablerede kulturinstitutioners formidling til børn og unge. En

erfaringsopsamling ved kultursociolog Ellen de Olivera [Open doors. Collected experiences

about educational initiatives aimed at children and young people in established cultural

institutions by cultural sociologist Ellen de Olivera]. Copenhagen: Kulturens Børn.

APPENDIX 2


APPENDIX 3

Finnish Publications 1995–2006

Ph.D. theses

Apuli-Suuronen, Rita. (1999). Kuvataiteen silmin. Suomen ja Ruotsin lukiokoulujen kuvataiteen

kirjoitetut opetussuunnitelmat. Tiedettä, taidetta vai toiveiden retoriikkaa? (The written cur-

ricula of Finnish and Swedish high schools from the viewpoint of visual arts. Science, art or

wishful rhetoric?). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Granö, Päivi. (2000). Taiteilijan lapsuuden kuvat. Lapsuus ja taide samassa hetkessä (Artist’s

childhood images in their context. Childhood and art caught in the moment). Helsinki:

University of Art and Design.

Issakainen, Anna-Maija (2004). Tietoverkot taideväylänä - lunastus vai lupaus. Tietoverkkojen

käyttö kuvataiteen tuntemuksen opetuksessa (Information networks as a channel of art - promise

or redemption. Using information networks in art education). Helsinki: University of Art

and Design.

Kallio, Minna. (2005). Ajatus kuvasta. Kuvan merkityksen pohdintaa kasvatuksen kontekstissa (On

visualisation. The signifi cance of the image in educational context). University of Helsinki.

Kankkunen, Tarja (2004). Tytöt, pojat ja leikkien ero. Sukupuolen rakentuminen koulun kuvataide-

opetuksen arjessa (Girls, boys and “gender play”. Gender construction in the everyday context

of school art education). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Kantonen, Lea. (2005). Teltta. Kohtaamisia nuorten taidetyöpajoissa (The tent. Encounters in

workshops for youngsters). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Karppinen, Seija. (2005). “Mitä taide tekee käsityöstä?” Käsityötaiteen peusopetuksen käsitteellinen

analyysi (“What does art make from crafts?” Conceptual analysis of basic crafts education).

University of Helsinki.

Karvinen, Heidi. (2004). Kohti kokonaisvaltaista opetuksen kehittämistä. Kuvataide osana eheyttä-

mistä peruskoulun alaluokilla (Towards the development of integrated learning: Visual arts

as part of integration in primary school). University of Helsinki.

Keskitalo, Anne Katarina. (2006). Tien päällä ja leirissä: matkanteon kokemuksesta taideteokseksi

(On the road and in camp: from the experience of travelling to a work of art). Rovaniemi:

University of Lapland.

Krappala, Mari. (1999). Burning (of) the ethics of the passions. Contemporary art as a process. Helsinki:



Laitinen, Sirkka. (2003). Hyvää ja kaunista. Kuvataideopetuksen mahdollisuuksista nuorten esteettisen

ja eettisen pohdinnan tukena (Good and beautiful. On the possibilities of visual art educa-

tion in backing up the youth’s aesthetical and ethical thinking). Helsinki: University of Art

and Design.

Manninen, Pekka A. (1995). Vastarinnan välineistö. Sarjakuvaharrastuksen merkityksiä (Tools of

resistance. Various meanings of cartoons as a hobby). University of Tampere.

Merta, Juha. (2006). Herääminen – kuvataiteen kohtaamisesta hermeneuttiseen tulkintaan. Kuva-

taidetta opettavien luokanopettajien muotokuvan luonnostelua tapaustutkimuksen valossa (Awa-

kening – from encounter to a hermeneutical interpretation in arts. Sketching a portrait of

primary teachers teaching visual arts). University of Tampere.

Nelimarkka, Riitta. (2001). Self portrait. Elisen väitöskirja. Variaation variaatio (Self portrait.

Elise’s dissertation. Variation of a variation). Helsinki: Seneca.

Outinen, Kira. (1995). Ala-asteen oppilaiden ihmispiirustusten visuaaliset laatuominaisuudet

(Concepts concerning visual qualities as seen in human fi gure drawings made by elementary

school children). University of Helsinki.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina. (2000). On the threshold of intercultural Alices. Intertextual research

on the illustrations of the English Alice in Wonderland and the German Alice im Wunderland in

intermedia research in the fi eld of art education. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko. (2005). Miksi kuvista? Koulun kuvataideopetuksen muuttuvat perustelut (Art

education, why? The changing justifi cations for art education in schools). Helsinki: Univer-

sity of Art and Design.

Pullinen, Jouko. (2003). Mestarin käden jäljillä. Kuvallinen dialogi fi losofi sen hermeneutiikan

näkökulmasta (Following a master – Visual dialogue seen from a hermeneutical perspective).

Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Pääjoki, Tarja. (2004). Taide kulttuurisena kohtaamispaikkana taidekasvatuksessa (The arts as a

place of cultural encounters in arts education). University of Jyväskylä.

Rantala, Kati. (2001). “Ite pitää keksii se juttu.” Tutkimus kuvataidekasvatuksen ja kasvatettavan

kohtaamisesta (“I have to fi nd it by myself.” A study on encounters between art education

and student). University of Helsinki.

Räsänen, Marjo. (1997). Building bridges. Experiential art understanding: A work of art as a means

of understanding and constructing self. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sederholm, Helena. (1998). Starting to play with arts education. Study of ways to approach experi-

ential and social modes of contemporary art. University of Jyväskylä.

Ulkuniemi, Seija. (2005). Valotetut elämät. Perhevalokuvan lajityyppiä pohtivat tilateokset dialogissa

katsojien kanssa (Exposed lives. Dialogues between viewers and installations examining the

genre of family photography). Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Viitanen, Pirjo. (1998). Hyvät, kauniit ja rumat kuvat. Ensiluokkalaisen taidekuvareseptio (Good,

beautyful and ugly pictures. First graders’ impression of art). University of Turku.

APPENDIX 3


Licentiate thesesBilund, Marja-Leena & Svahn-Kumpulainen, Sirpa (2005). Luokkahuoneesta taidemuseoon. Opet-

tajan matka (From classroom to museum. A teacher’s journey). Unpublished Lic., University

of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.

Forsman, Anna-Christina (1997). Att initiera visuellt tänkande. Om klasslärares interaktioner under

lektioner i teckning (To initiate visual thinking. About classroom teachers’ interaction during

art lessons). Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

Granö, Päivi (1999). Taiteilijan lapsuuden kuvat (The artist’s childhood images in their context).

Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

Grönholm, Inari (1999). Portfolio oppimisen välineenä kuvataidekasvatuksessa. Kuvaus yhdestä

portfolioprosessista (Portfolio as a tool for learning in art education. Description of a portfolio

process). Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

Hannula, Kaija (2002). Osallistava ympäristötaide ja taidekasvatus. Christon ja Jeanne-Clauden

projektit oppimisympäristöinä (Participatory environmental art and art education. The projects

of Christo and Jeanne-Claude as learning environments). Unpublished Lic., University of

Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.

Hiltunen, Mirja (1999) Arktinen Aktio. Eräissä pohjoisissa taidetapahtumissa vaikuttavat taide-

käsitykset yhteisöllisen taidekasvatuksen näkökulmasta (Arctic action. Prominent art ideology

in some Nordic art events in terms of community based art education). Unpublished Lic.,

University of Lapland, Rovaniemi.

Laitinen, Sirkka (1999). Kuvataidekasvatuksen mahdollisuuksista nuoren eettisen ja esteettisen

kasvun tukena (On the possibilities of visual art education in supporting adolescents’ aesthetical

and ethical thinking). Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

Miettinen, Raija (1998) Esteettinen kasvatus ja taiteen merkitys persoonallisuuden kehityksessä

(Aesthetic education and the meaning of art in personal development). Unpublished Lic.,

University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

Mäkelä, Kerttu (2002) Piirustuksenopetus Suomen kansakoulunopettajaseminaareissa vuosina

1899–1945. Kehityslinjat Heinolan seminaarissa (Drawing instruction in Finnish folk-school

teacher training seminars in the years 1899–1945. Developmental trends in Heinola seminar).

Unpublished Lic., University of Helsinki.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina (1996). Intertekstuaalinen tutkimus englantilaisista Alice in Wonder-

land -kuvituksista vuosilta 1984–1994 ja Alices in Wonderland -multimedia (Intertextual study

on English Alice in Wonderland –illustrations between 1984–1994 in the form of a multimedia).


Piironen, Liisa (1998). Leikissä taiteen ainekset – leikin ja taiteen yhteydet (The elements of art in

play – connections between art and play). Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design,

Helsinki.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (1999). Näkemisen uudet tavat. Kuvaamataidonopettajien suhde 1960–1970

-lukujen taidekasvatuskäsitysten muutoksiin (New ways of seeing. The changing reasons for

teaching visual arts). Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

APPENDIX 3


Pääjoki, Tarja (1998). Taidekasvatuksen ja taiteen välisiä kysymyksiä: ajatuksia henkilökohtaisen

taidekasvatusnäkemyksen rakentajalle (Issues between arts and arts education: thoughts for

constructing a personal view for arts education). Unpublished Lic., University of Jyväskylä,

Jyväskylä.

Raevaara, Martti (1999). Pedagoginen kritiikki. Kuvataidekurssien ryhmäkritiikki Taideteollisessa

korkeakoulussa (Pedagocical critique. Group critiques in fi ne art classes at the University of

Art and Design). Unpublished Lic., University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

Suominen, Tapio (1998). Alfred Lichtwark taidekasvattajana - saksalaisen taidekasvatusliikkeen

jäljillä (Alfred Lichtwark as an art educator - tracking the German art education move-

ment). Unpublished Lic., University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.

Trygg, Tarja (1999). Valokuvan lumo pragmatistisen taidenäkemyksen valossa – taide kokemuksena

(The fascination of a photograph in the pragmatical frame of reference – art as experience).


Ulkuniemi, Seija (1998). Kuvitella elämää. Perhevalokuvien lajityypin tarkastelua (Imagining

living. Examining the genre of family photographs). Unpublished Lic., University of

Lapland, Rovaniemi.

BooksBardy, Marjatta (Ed.). (1998). Taide tiedon lähteenä (Art as a source of knowledge). Helsinki:

Stakes/Atena.

Grönholm, Inari (Ed.). (1995). Kuvien maailma (The world of images). Helsinki: Finnish

Ministry of Education.

Hiltunen, Mirja & Jokela, Timo (Eds.). (2005). Täälläkö taidetta? Johdatus yhteisölliseen tai-

dekasvatukseen (Art, here? Introduction to community-based art education). Rovaniemi:

University of Lapland.

Hiltunen, Mirja & Mannerkoski, Olli (Eds.). (1997). Synestesia - onko taiteilla väliä? (Synaesthesia

– Do arts matter?). Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Huhmarniemi, Maria, Jokela, Timo, & Vuorjoki, Susanna (Eds.). (2003). Winter art. Statements

on winter culture, winter art and snow construction. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Ikonen, Petteri & Vira, Riitta (Eds.). (2004). Esineet esiin! Näkökulmia muotoilukasvatukseen

(Make the objects visible! Issues on design education). Helsinki: Arts Council of Finland.

Jakku-Sihvonen, Ritva (Ed.). (2006 ). Taide- ja taitoaineiden opetuksen merkityksiä (Meanings of

teaching arts and skills subjects). Helsinki: Theatre Academy.

Jokela, Timo (Ed.). (1999). Tunturi taiteen ja tieteen maisemassa (Fells in the scenery of art and

science). Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Jokela, Timo & Kuuri, Elina (Eds.). (1999). Ultima Thule: Northern environment and art project.

Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Kantonen, Lea & Kantonen, Pekka (Eds.). (1999). The tent - a book of travels. Helsinki: University

of Art and Design.

Karppinen, Seija, Puurula, Arja, & Ruokonen, Inkeri (Eds.). (2001). Elämysten alkupoluilla.

Lähtökohtia alle 3-vuotiaiden taidekasvatukseen (First steps of experiences. Starting points of

art education for children under 3 years). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.

APPENDIX 3


Karppinen, Seija, Puurula, Arja, & Ruokonen, Inkeri (Eds.). (2001). Taiteen ja leikin lumous.

4–8-vuotiaiden lasten taito- ja taidekasvatus (The fascination of art and play. Teaching arts

and skills to children aged 4–8 years). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.

Kettunen, Kaisa, Hiltunen, Mirja, Laitinen, Sirkka, & Rastas, Marja (Eds.). (2006). Kuvien keskellä.

Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (Among images. Jubilee book of the Finnish Art Eduction

Association 100 years). Helsinki: Like.

Korkeakoski, Esko (Ed.). (1998). Lasten ja nuorten taidekasvatuksen tuloksellisuus. Virikkeitä ja

perusteita peruskoulun ja lukion taidekasvatuksen arviointiin (The profi tability of art education

for children and youth. Incitements and rationale for the evaluation of art education in

Finnish comprehensive and upper secondary schools). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of

Education.

Krappala, Mari & Pääjoki, Tarja (Eds.). (2003). Taide ja toiseus. Syrjästä yhteisöön (Art and otherness.

From margins to the center). Helsinki: Stakes.

Levanto, Marjatta & Pettersson, Susanna (Eds.). (2004). Valistus/ museopedagogiikka/ oppiminen

– taidemuseo kohtaa yleisönsä (Enlightenment / Museum education / Learning – Art museum

meets its audience). Helsinki: Finnish National Gallery.

Levo, Merja (Ed.). (2001). Merimatka. Taiteilijaopettaja monikulttuurisen koulun arjessa (A voyage.

An artist-teacher in the daily work of multicultural school). City of Helsinki.

Linko, Maaria (Ed.). (1998). Aitojen elämysten kaipuu. Yleisön kuvataiteelle, kirjallisuudelle ja museoille

antamat merkitykset (The yearning for authentic experiences. The meanings of visual art,

literature and museums assigned by their audiences). University of Jyväskylä.

Mantere, Meri-Helga (Ed.). (1995). Maan kuva. Kirjoituksia taiteeseen perustuvasta ympäristökas-

vatuksesta (Image of the earth. Writings of art based environmental education). Helsinki:


Mäkiranta, Mari & Brusila, Riitta (Eds.). (2006). Kuvakulmia. Puheenvuoroja kuvista ja kuvallisesta

kulttuurista (View angles. Statements on images and visual culture). Rovaniemi: Lapland

University Press.

Oikarinen-Jabai, Helena (2001). Monikulttuurista taidekasvatusta etsimässä (In search of multi-

cultural art education). City of Helsinki.

Opetusministeriö (Ed.). (2006). Ammattien kutsu; Ammattikorkeakoulut ja estetiikka (The call of

professions: Polytechnics and aesthetics). Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education.

Piironen, Liisa & Salminen, Antero (Eds.). (1996). Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhla-

kirja (Imagine a century. Jubilee book of art education). Helsinki: University of Art and

Design.

Puurula, Arja (Ed.). (1998). Taito- ja taideaineiden opetuksen integrointi. Kokemuksia, käytäntöjä,

teoriaa (Integrating arts and skills subjects. Experiences, practices, theory). University of

Helsinki.

Puurula, Arja (Ed.). (1999). Moni- ja interkulttuurinen taidekasvatus (Multi- and intercultural

arts education). University of Helsinki.

Pääjoki, Tarja (Ed.). (1999). Reittejä taidekasvatuksen kartalla. Taidekäsityksen merkityksestä

taide kasvatusteksteissä (Routes on the map of art education. On the meaning of art concep-

tion in art educational texts). Jyväskylä: Kampus Kustannus.

APPENDIX 3


Räsänen, Marjo (2000). Sillanrakentajat. Kokemuksellinen taiteen ymmärtäminen (Bridge buil-

ders. Experiential art understanding). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Räsänen, Marjo (Ed.). (2002). MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (Plural.

Multiroled university art educators). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta & Sava, Inkeri (Eds.). (1998). Me tutkimme. Taidekasvatuksen jatko-opiskeli-

joiden menetelmällisiä puheenvuoroja (We do research. Methodological addresses from the

post-graduate students in art education). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Salminen, Antero (2005). Pääjalkainen. Kuva ja havainto (Cephalopod. Image and observation).

(Ed. I. Koskinen) Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri (1997). The little mermaid – can a female researcher in her fi fties be a child… and look

at the child inside herself? Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (1998). Art education in a multicultural context. A multiartistic project for the

research and development of ethnic multicultural practices in an elementary school in Helsinki.

City of Helsinki.

Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (1999). Ajatuksia monikulttuurisuudesta (Thoughts on multiculturalism).


Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (2000). Taikomo-projektin päättyessä. Monikulttuurisuudesta matkalla minuuteen

(Conclusing the Taikomo-project. Travelling from multiculturalism to self). City of Helsinki.

Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (2000). Tutkija monikulttuurisen koulun arjessa. Havaintoja, kokemuksia, poh-

dintaa (Researcher in a multicultural school. Observations, experiences, refl ections). City

of Helsinki.

Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (2000). Rajoilla 1. Rajattajat ja rajojen ylittäjät (On the borders 1. Border makers

and border crossers). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri (Ed.). (2000). Rajoilla 2. Rajansa myös taiteella (On the borders 2. There are borders

to art as well). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri & Bardy, Marjatta (Eds.). (2002). Taiteellinen toiminta, elämäntarinat ja syrjäytyminen

(Artistic practise, lifestories and marginalisation). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri & Räsänen, Marjo (Eds.). (2000). Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (Views on art edu-

cation). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri & Vesanen-Laukkanen, Virpi (Eds.). (2004). Taiteeksi tarinoitu oma elämä (Life

narrated into arts). Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.

Sederholm, Helena (2001). Tämäkö taidetta? (You call this art?). Helsinki: WSOY.

Varto, Juha (2001). Kauneuden taito. Estetiikkaa taidekasvattajille (Skill of beauty. Aesthetics for

art educators). Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Varto, Juha, Saarnivaara, Marjatta, & Tervahattu, Heikki (Eds.). (2003). Kohtaamisia taiteen ja

tutkimuksen maastoissa (Encounters in the terrains of art and research). Hamina: Akatiimi.

APPENDIX 3


ChaptersAhoniemi, Pirkko (2000). Käsityön ja taiteen raja ja rajattomuus (The border and borderlessness

between crafts and arts). In I. Sava (Ed.), Rajoilla 2. Rajansa myös taiteella (pp. 5-14). Helsinki:


Bardy, Marjatta (2002). Syrjäytymisestä, taiteesta ja kehityksestä (On marginalisation, art and

development). In I. Sava & M. Bardy (Eds.), Taiteellinen toiminta, elämäntarinat ja syrjäytyminen

(pp. 7-15). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Forsman, Anna-Christina (1995). Ämnet teckning (Art education as a school subject). In I.

Grönholm (Ed.), Kuvien maailma (pp. 45-52). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Forsman, Anna-Christina (1998). Konstfostran på svenska – problem och visioner (Art edu-

cation in Swedish – problems and visions). In E. Korkeakoski (Ed.), Lasten ja nuorten taide-

kasvatuksen tuloksellisuus. Virikkeitä ja perusteita peruskoulun ja lukion taidekasvatuksen arvi-

ointiin (pp. 67-77). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Granö, Päivi (2000). Remembered drawings – The artist’s childhood in their context. In L.

Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context. Comparative studies of art education and children’s draw-

ings (pp. 94-103). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Granö, Päivi (2003). Taide tutkijan ymmärryksen avaajana. (Art as an opener of researcher’s

understanding). In J. Varto, M. Saarnivaara, & H. Tervahattu (Eds.), Kohtaamisia taiteen ja

tutkimuksen maastoissa (pp. 132-137). Hamina: Akatiimi.

Granö, Päivi (2004). Näkymätön ja näkyvä lapsuuden maa, leikkipaikka pellon laidasta tieto-

konepeliin (The invisible and visible childhood terrain, fi elds and computer games as playg-

rounds). In L. Piironen (Ed.), Leikin pikkujättiläinen (pp. 40-47 ). Helsinki: WSOY.

Granö, Päivi (2006). Internetin kuvagallerian omakuvat nuoren rajaamana paikkana (Self-por-

traits in Internet picture galleries as a place delineated by the adolescents themselves). In P.

Saarikoski, R. Turtiainen, & P. Granö (Eds.), Raja, kohtaamisia ja ylityksiä. Turku: University

Consortium of Pori, University of Turku.

Grönholm, Inari (1997). Kuvataiteellisen edistymisen arviointiperusteita (Criteria for the

assessment of progress in visual art). In R. Jakku-Sihvonen (Ed.), Onnistuuko oppiminen.

Oppimistuloksien ja opetuksen laadun arviointiperusteita peruskoulussa ja lukiossa. Helsinki:

Finnish National Board of Education.

Grönholm, Inari & Piironen, Liisa (1998). Kuvataidekasvatuksen haasteet ensi vuosituhannella

(The challenges of visual art education for the next millennium). In E. Korkeakoski (Ed.),

Lasten ja nuorten taidekasvatuksen tuloksellisuus. Virikkeitä ja perusteita peruskoulun ja lukion

taidekasvatuksen arviointiin (pp. 17-32). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Gurler, Mustafa (2000). Journey to hope. In I. Sava (Ed.), Rajoilla 1. Rajattajat ja rajojen ylittäjät

(pp. 9-13). Helsinki: University of Art and Design

Haveri, Minna (2005). Taiteen rajalla – Nykykansantaiteen teosympäristöt taidekasvattajan

tutkimuskohteena (On the border of art - Contemporary folk art environments as object

of study of the art teacher). In P. Rantala & M. Tuominen (Eds.), Rajoilla. Puheenvuoroja

tutkimuksen rajoista ja rajojen tutkimisesta (On the borders. Discussions about the borders of

research and about researching the borders). (pp. 187-201). Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press.

APPENDIX 3


Hiltunen, Mirja (1998). Nukketeatteri taiteen ja kasvun paikkana (Puppet theatre as a place for

art and growth). In M. Hiltunen & L. Torniainen (Eds.), Naamionuken monet kasvot. Nukke-

teatteri yhteisöllisenä taidekasvattajana (pp. 7-19). Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press.

Hiltunen, Mirja (2001). Performatiivisia tapahtumia – kohti taiteidenvälistä, yhteisöön kiinnit-

tyvää taidekasvatusta (Performative events – towards interdisciplinary, community-based

art education). In L. Hyvönen & E. Lindfors (Eds.), Tehhään yhesä! Taide- ja taitokasvatuksen

tulevaisuus (pp. 67-73). Oulu: University of Oulu.

Hiltunen, Mirja (2002). Ytyä taideopettajuuteen. Yhteisön, taiteen ja ympäristön kohtaamisia

(Kick for art educators. Encounters with community, art and environment). In M. Räsänen

(Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 44-51). Helsinki: Uni-

versity of Art and Design.

Hiltunen, Mirja (2003). Talvi fantasian ja draaman näyttämönä (Winter as a stage for fantasy

and drama). In M. Huhmarniemi, T. Jokela, & S. Vuorjoki (Eds.), Winter art. Statements on

winter culture, winter art and snow construction (pp. 44-49). Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Hiltunen, Mirja (2006). Elettyä taidetta – yhteistä toimimista (Lived art – working together).

In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataide-

opettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 25-37). Helsinki: Like.

Issakainen, Anna-Maija (1996). Taideaineet peruskoulussa – kuvaamataito ja musiikki 9. luokan

valinnaisaineena (Arts subjects in comprehensive school – visual art and music as optional

subjects in grade 9). In A. Sihvonen, A. Lindström, & S. Lipsanen (Eds.), Toteuttaako perus-

koulu tasa-arvoa? (pp. 266-310). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Jokela, Timo (1995). Esteettisen ympäristökasvatuksen perusteita (Foundations for aesthetic

environmental education). In E. Jeronen (Ed.), Perustietoa ympäristökasvattajalle II. Moni-

tieteinen näkökulma yhteiskunnalliseen ympäristöön, esteettiseen ympäristöön ja eettiseen ympä-

ristöön. Oulu: University of Oulu.

Jokela, Timo (1996). Ympäristö, taide ja esteettinen kasvu (Environment, art and aesthetic

growth). In T. Haase (Ed.), Taide kasvun ja kasvatuksen voimavarana. Rovaniemi: University

of Lapland.

Jokela, Timo (1997). Ympäristö, esteettinen kasvu ja taide. (Environment, aesthetic growth and

art.) In M. Käpylä & R. Walhström (Eds.), Vihreä ihminen. Ympäristökasvatuksen menetelmä-

opas 2. University of Jyväskylä.

Kaartinen, Vuokko & Viitanen, Pirjo (2000). Muistelen koulussa saamaani taidekasvatusta.

Luokanopettajaksi opiskelevien koulukokemusten tarkastelua kuvataiteen sekä äidinkielen

ja kirjallisuuden oppiaineen näkökulmasta (Memories from art education in school. Explor-

ing classroom teacher trainees’ school experiences from the viewpoints of visual art and

mother tongue as school subjects). In I. Buchberger (Ed.), Opettaja ja aine. Osa I (pp. 235-258).


Kairavuori, Seija (2000). Paikka taulun edessä. Luokanopettaja kuvataidekasvattajana (Standing

in front of the blackboard. Classroom teacher as an art educator). In I. Sava & M. Räsänen

(Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 21-25). Helsinki: University of Art and Design

APPENDIX 3


Kairavuori, Seija (2002). Kun katsoin sinuun. Kuvallinen työskentely opettajan itsearvioinnin

välineenä (When I looked at you. Using images as tools for teachers’ self-assessment). In

M. Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 25-31).


Kankkunen, Tarja (1998). “Gender play” in students’ artistic expression. In L. Lindström (Ed.),

Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review (pp. 68-73). Stockholm

Institute of Education Press.

Kankkunen, Tarja (1999). Kuvistaidemaailman estetiikkoja etsimässä (In search of aesthetics

in the visual art education world). In P. Houni & P. Paavolainen (Eds.), Taide, kertomus ja

identiteetti. Helsinki: Theatre Academy.

Kantonen, Lea (2000). Vetäytyminen, sopeutuminen vai radikaali avoimuuden tila (Withdrawal,

adaptation or the state of radical openness). In I. Sava (Ed.), Rajoilla 1. Rajattajat ja rajojen

ylittäjät (pp. 14-23). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Kantonen, Lea (2002). Me piirsimme heitä ja he piirsivät meitä (We sketched them and they

sketched us). In M. Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa


Karppinen, Seija (2001). Repertory grid technique with children in visual arts conversations. In

C. Weikert, S.-O. Brenner & M. Persson (Eds.), Exploring constructivism. Repertory grid tech-

nique as a tool for mapping cognitive structures. University of Kristianstad, Sw.

Karppinen, Seija (2002). Communication and interaction in arts and culture. In S. Karppinen

(Ed.), Neothemi – Cultural heritage and ICT at a glance. University of Helsinki.

Kettunen, Kaisa (2000). Make a minute! Families in a museum workshop. In I. Sava & M. Räsänen

(Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 37-42). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Kettunen, Kaisa (2002). Peilistä näkyy perhe (The mirror refl ects a family). In M. Räsänen (Ed.),

MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 13-17). Helsinki: University

of Art and Design.

Kettunen, Kaisa (2004). Mitä työpajassa tapahtuu? (What happens in a workshop?). In M. Levanto

& S. Pettersson (Eds.), Valistus / Museopedagogiikka / Oppiminen – Taidemuseo kohtaa yleisönsä

(pp. 89-97). Helsinki: Finnish National Gallery.

Kettunen, Kaisa (2006). Museossa opitaan (Museums are for learning). In K. Kettunen, M.

Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta

(pp. 179-188). Helsinki: Like.

Koivurova, Anniina (2006). Ihailtavat ja kadehdittavat kuvat. Koulun kuvataidetyöt oppilaiden

sosiaalisten suhteiden ilmentäjinä (Pictures to be admired and envied. School artwork as an

expression of students’ social relations). In M. Mäkiranta & R. Brusila (Eds.), Kuvakulmia.

Puheenvuoroja kuvista ja kuvallisesta kulttuurista (pp. 111-130). Rovaniemi: Lapland University

Press.

Kojonkoski-Rännäli, Seija (1998). Käsityö taidekasvatuksessa, taide käsityökasvatuksessa

(Crafts in art education, art in crafts education). In E. Korkeakoski (Ed.), Lasten ja nuorten

taidekasvatuksen tuloksellisuus. Virikkeitä ja perusteita peruskoulun ja lukion taidekasvatuksen

arviointiin (pp. 93-110). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

APPENDIX 3


Krappala, Mari (1999). Moni(nainen) toinen (A feminist viewpoint of the other). In I. Sava

(Ed.), Ajatuksia monikulttuurisuudesta (pp. 9-13). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Krappala, Mari (2000). Artmade research. In S. Leppänen & J. Kuortti (Eds.), Inescapable horizon.

Culture and context (pp. 255-271). University of Jyväskylä.

Krappala, Mari (2002). Suhde toiseen ilman kolmatta ennalta määrättyä nimittäjää (A relation

to the other without the third predetermined denominator). In I. Sava & M. Bardy (Eds.),

Taiteellinen toiminta, elämäntarinat ja syrjäytyminen (pp. 46-51 ). Helsinki: University of Art

and Design.

Krappala, Mari (2003). Kauas kotiin Kontulaan (A Long way home to Kontula). In T. Kopomaa

(Ed.), Kohti Kaupunkisosiaalityötä. Haasteena tasapainoinen kaupunki. (pp. 83-98). Helsinki:

Palmenia kustannus.

Krappala, Mari (2003). Rationaalisen ajattelun ulottumattomissa olevaa (Out of reach of rational

thinking). In J. Varto, M. Saarnivaara, & H. Tervahattu (Eds.), Kohtaamisia taiteen ja tutkimisen

maastoissa (pp. 166-173). Hamina: Akatiimi.

Krappala, Mari (2004). Avoin tila lapsen ja aikuisen välillä (Open space between a child and an

adult). In I. Sava & V. Vesanen-Laukkanen (Eds.), Taiteeksi tarinoitu oma elämä (pp. 167-180).

Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.

Krappala, Mari (2005). Hetki sylissä (The circling moment). In T. Heino, M. Kekkonen, & P.

Känkänen (Eds.), Lapsuuden kudelmat (Tapestries of childhood). Helsinki: Stakes.

Laitinen, Sirkka (2006). Media on kuvaa – mutta missä opetetaan? (Media is images – but where

is it taught?). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä.

Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 200-213). Helsinki: Like.

Laitinen, Sirkka (2006). Museon taidekasvatustyö koulun näkökulmasta (School’s views on art

museum education). In E. Happonen & K. Kähkönen (Eds.), Miksi aurinko on vihreä? (Why

is the sun green?) (pp. 47-64 ). Rovaniemi: Rovaniemen taidemuseo.

Laukka, Maria (2001). Sotketut peikon kasvot. Kuvakirjat ja kirjojen kuvat (Soiled face of a

troll. Picture books and book illustrations). In T. Korolainen (Ed.), Kirjaseikkailu. Lasten- ja

nuortenkirjallisuuden opas (pp. 62-76). Helsinki: Tammi.

Laukka, Maria (2003). Suomalaisen lastenkirjankuvituksen kehitys (The development of

illustrations in children’s books in Finland). In L. Huhtala, K. Grünn, I. Loivamaa, & M.

Laukka (Eds.), Pieni suuri maailma. Suomalaisen lasten- ja nuortenkirjallisuuden historia

(pp. 89-136). Helsinki: Tammi.

Levanto, Marjatta (1996). Kansanvalistuksesta, taidekasvatuksesta ja museopedagogiikasta

(Public education, art education and museum education). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen

(Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 87-95). Helsinki: University of

Art and Design.

Levanto, Marjatta (2004). Taide kohtaa yleisönsä (Art meets its audience). In M. Levanto & S.

Pettersson (Eds.), Valistus/ museopedagogiikka/ oppiminen. Helsinki: Finnish National Gallery.

Liljeström, Seppo & Markku, Reijo (1995). Muotoilu muuttuvassa maailmassa (Formgiving in

a changing world). In I. Grönholm (Ed.), Kuvien maailma (pp. 145-152). Helsinki: Finnish

National Board of Education.

APPENDIX 3


Linko, Maaria (2003). The longing for authentic experiences: The subjective meaning of visual

art for museum audience and amateur artists. In M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle, & V. Sekules

(Eds.), Researching visual arts education in museums and galleries: An international reader

(pp. 65-76). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Malinen, Piritta (2006). Tahtojen taistelua vai sielujen sympatiaa – kuvataideopettaja nuorison

kuvakulttuurien pyörteissä (Battle of wills or sympathy of souls – art teacher in the whirl-

wind of the youth’s visual cultures). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas

(Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 135-145). Helsinki: Like.

Mantere, Meri-Helga (1995). Ekologia, ympäristökasvatus ja kuvaamataito (Ecology, environ-

mental education and art education). In I. Grönholm (Ed.), Kuvien maailma (pp. 97-111).

Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Mantere, Meri-Helga (1996). Opettajana ja terapeuttina. Kuvataideterapia heijastuspintana (In

the roles of a teacher and therapist. Art therapy as refl ective surface). In L. Piironen & A.

Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 54-59). Helsinki: University

of Art and Design.

Nurmi, Kari E. (1996). Taidekasvatuksen tutkimuksesta (Research in art education). In L. Piironen

& A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 142-149). Helsinki:


Oikarinen-Jabai, Helena (2000). Matkalla olevat identiteetit (Identities on the road). In I. Sava

(Ed.), Rajoilla 1. Rajattajat ja rajojen ylittäjät (pp. 24-27). Helsinki: University of Art and

Design.

Othman, Erica (1996). Verkstaden i Ateneum – att drabbas av bildkonst (Workshops in Ateneum

– caught by visual art). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasva-

tuksen juhlakirja (pp. 96-105). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Othman, Erica (2004). Museon sydämessä – ajatuksia työpajatyöskentelystä taidemuseossa (In

the heart of the museum – refl ections on workshops in the art museum). In M. Levanto

& S. Pettersson (Eds.), Valistus/ museopedagogiikka/ oppiminen. Helsinki: Finnish National

Gallery.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina (1998). Intertextuality and multimedia in visual arts research.

In L. Lindström (Ed.), Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review

(pp. 56-62). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina (2003). In search of the intercultural Alices: The application of an

intertextual method in art education practice. In T. Davies, E. Forrest, & P. Worrall (Eds.),

A critical context. Art and design education on the edge (pp. 13-14, 21). Birmingham UK: IAD/

UCE, Cascade publication.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina (2005). Thinking digitally and intermedially in art education. In S.

Sonvilla-Weiss (Ed.), (e)Pedagogy – Visual knowledge building. Rethinking art and new media

in education (pp. 103-126). Berne, Switz.: Peter Lang.

Piironen, Liisa (1995). Leikissä taiteen ainekset. Ala-asteen kuvaamataidon opetuksen perusteita

(Elements of art in play. Foundations of art education in the lower secondary school). In I.

Grönholm (Ed.), Kuvien maailma (pp. 13-45). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

APPENDIX 3


Piironen, Liisa (1996). Kappale kuvaamataidonopettajan matkaa (On a journey with an art edu-

cator). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja


Piironen, Liisa (2004). Leikissä taiteen ainekset (The elements of art in play). In L. Piironen

(Ed.), Leikin pikkujättiläinen (pp. 80-91). Helsinki: WSOY.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (1996). Kuvitella vuosisata. Vuosisata koululaisten piirtämänä (To imagine a

century. A century drawn by children). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosi-

sata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 19-29). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (1998). Refl ections on the art education history. In L. Lindström (Ed.), Nordic

visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review (pp. 63-67). Stockholm Institute

of Education Press.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (1998). Vanhoista koulutöistä kuvaelämäkertoihin (From old school artwork

to picture biographies). In M. Bardy (Ed.), Taide tiedon lähteenä (pp. 133-143). Helsinki: Stakes.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (2000). Questions to old school drawings. In L. Lindström (Ed.), The cultural

context. Comparative studies of art education and children’s drawings (pp. 81-93). Stockholm


Pohjakallio, Pirkko (2006). Miksi kuvista? (Art education – why?) In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen,

S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 38-49).

Helsinki: Like.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (2006). Puhetta taiteen paikasta koulussa – Taidekasvatuksen jatkuva

perustelujen tarve (Talking about the place of art at school – The continuing need of jus-

tifi cations for art). In R. Jakku-Sihvonen (Ed.), Taide- ja taitoaineiden opetuksen merkityksiä

(pp. 10-32). Helsinki: Theatre Academy.

Puurula, Arja (2001) Teachers’ views on aff ective education and teaching the arts; Estonian

and Finnish teachers compared. In L. Talts & M. Vikat (Eds.), Lapse kasvukeskkond Eestis ja

Soomes I (pp. 36-63). Tallinn: Pedagogikaulikool.

Pääjoki, Tarja (1997) PyhäTaide ja ArkiElämä. Taidekasvatuksen ja taidekäsitysten yhteen-

törmäilyä (Sacred art and mundane life. Collisions of art education and conceptions of

art). In M. Hiltunen & O. Mannerkoski (Eds.), Synestesia – onko taiteilla väliä? (pp. 26-41).

Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.

Pääjoki, Tarja (1999) Taidekasvattaja näkemystään etsimässä. Dialogia teorioiden kanssa (The

art educator in search of the view. A dialogue with theories). In K. Hannula (Ed.), Lisää väriä…

unen taivaaseen, että se kestää minun painoni. Taiteen perusopetuksen ohjaajien täydennys-

koulutus 1998. Petäjävesi: Keski-Suomen käsi- ja taideteollisuusoppilaitos.

Pääjoki, Tarja (2000). Monikulttuurinen taidekasvatus kertomuksena. Narratiivisen tulkinnan

välineitä. (Multicultural art education as a narrative. Tools for narrative interpretation.) In

I. Sava & M. Räsänen (Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 5-13). Helsinki: University

of Art and Design.

Pääjoki, Tarja (2002). Leikkipaikkana kultainen häkki. Monikulttuurinen taidekasvatus koulussa

(The playground of a golden cage. Multicultural art education in the school). In I. Sava &

M. Bardy (Eds.), Taiteellinen toiminta, elämäntarinat ja syrjäytyminen (pp. 41-45). Helsinki:


APPENDIX 3


Pääjoki, Tarja (2006). Kohtaamisia taiteessa (Encounters in art). In M. Velhonoja (Ed.), Taiteilija

opettajana ja oppilaana. Pori: Satakunnan ammattikorkeakoulu.

Raevaara, Martti (1998). Studying critique sessions in the visual arts. In L. Lindström (Ed.),

Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review (pp. 51-55). Stockholm


Raevaara, Martti (2006). Virtaa verkosta – kuvataiteen opettajankoulutus verkko-opiskeluna.

(Power from the net – art teacher training on the net.) In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S.

Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 86-97).

Helsinki: Like.

Raita, Marika (2006). Kerrottu kuvataideopettajuus. (A narrative: being an art teacher.) In K.

Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettaja-

liitto 100 vuotta (pp. 125-134.). Helsinki: Like.

Rankanen, Mimmu (2006). Luonnoksia kuvataideterapian, terapeuttisen kuvan tekemisen

ja kuvataideopetuksen suhteista (Sketching the relationships between visual art therapy,

therapeutic image-making and art education). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, &

M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 189-199). Helsinki:

Like.

Rantala, Kati & Krappala, Mari (2000). Kauas kotiin Kontulaan (A Long way home to Kontula).

In Stadipiiri (Ed.), URBS. Kirja Helsingin kaupunkikulttuurista (pp. 217-232). Helsinki: Edita.

Rastas, Marja (2000). Kaikuja taideluokasta (Echoes from the art class). In I. Sava & M. Räsänen

(Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 26-30). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Rastas, Marja (2002) Kuvia tutkijan paikasta (Images about the place of a researcher). In M.

Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 38-43).


Rastas, Marja (2006). Eidologin perintö – Antero Salmisen taidekasvatusajattelusta (The legacy

of an eidologist – On Antero Salminen’s philosophy of art education.) In K. Kettunen, M.

Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta

(pp. 98-109). Helsinki: Like.

Rastas, Marja & Kauppi, Hannu (2004). Mieli kuvassa – näkökulmia kuvataiteen opiskeluun ja

opettamiseen. (Mind in the picture – views on the study and teaching of visual art). In S.

Niemelä & M. Luutonen (Eds.), Taitava ihminen – toimiva kansalainen. Aikuisopiskelun motii-

veja ja merkityksiä (pp. 33-43). Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura.

Rusanen, Sinikka (2000). Artistic identity of kindergarten teacher students. In I. Sava & M.

Räsänen (Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 31-36). Helsinki: University of Art and

Design.

Rusanen, Sinikka. (2002). Merestä noussut – veistos muutoksen metaforana (A woman came

from the sea – a sculpture as a metaphor of transformation). In M. Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko.

Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 32-37). Helsinki: University of Art and

Design.

Rusanen, Sinikka & Torkki, Kaisa (2000). Minusta jää jälki (I leave a message). In S. Karppinen,

A. Puurula, & I. Ruokonen (Eds.), Elämysten alkupoluilla (pp. 44-53). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.

APPENDIX 3


Rusanen, Sinikka & Torkki, Kaisa (2001). Mistä on lapsen kuvat tehty (From where are the images

of the child). In S. Karppinen, A. Puurula, & I. Ruokonen (Eds.), Taiteen ja leikin lumous

(pp. 88-105). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.

Räsänen, Marjo (1995). Kuvasta kokemukseksi – eräs näkökulma taidekuvan tarkasteluun

(From image into experience – a view on exploring art). In I. Grönholm (Ed.), Kuvien maailma

(pp. 53-68). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Räsänen, Marjo (1996). Sillanrakentajat. Kokemuksellinen taiteen ymmärtäminen (Bridge

builders. Experiential art understanding). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuo-

sisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 130-141). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Räsänen, Marjo (2000). Taidekasvattaja oman työnsä tutkijana. Tutkimusprojekti Omakuvat

– muotokuvat (Art educator as a researcher of her own work. Self portraits – Portraits, a

research project). In I. Sava & M. Räsänen (Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 14-20).


Räsänen, Marjo (2002). Opettaja tutkijana ja taiteilijana (Teacher as a researcher and an artist).

In M. Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 3-7).


Räsänen, Marjo (2003). Interpreting art through visual narratives. In M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle,

& V. Sekules (Eds.), Researching visual arts education in museums and galleries: An interna-

tional reader (pp. 183-195). Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Räsänen, Marjo (2003). Kirjeitä sinisestä hatusta (Letters from a blue hat). In J. Varto, M. Saar-

nivaara, & H. Tervahattu (Eds.), Kohtaamisia taiteen ja tutkimuksen maastoissa (pp. 174-183).

Hamina: Akatiimi.

Räsänen, Marjo (2003). TaiTajasta TaiTavaksi opettajaksi (From skills to skillfull teaching). In

A. Virta & O. Marttila (Eds.), Opettaja, asiantuntijuus ja yhteiskunta (pp. 300-306). University

of Turku.

Räsänen, Marjo (2004). Kuvataide kulttuuri-identiteettien rakentajana (Constructing cultural

identity through art). In M. Virtanen (Ed.), Avain monikulttuuriseen Suomeen – opas perus-

opetuksen aihekokonaisuuteen kulttuuri-identiteetti ja kansainvälisyys (pp. 79-92). University

of Turku.

Räsänen, Marjo (2006). Kuvataide eloon! (Enliven art education!). In V. Kaartinen & S. Sura

(Eds.), Draama ja kasvatus. Opas koulun draamatyöskentelyyn (pp. 86-101). University of Turku.

Räsänen, Marjo. (2006). Väline vai itseisarvo? Taiteen avulla, taidetta varten ja taiteeseen (Tool or

intrinsic value? Through art, for art and into art). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, &

M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 11-24). Helsinki: Like.

Räsänen, Marjo (2007). Social issues in art education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook

of research in arts education (pp. 1079-1080). Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta (1998). The researcher’s subjectivity and contextualization. In L. Lind-

ström (Ed.), Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review (pp. 43-50).


Saarnivaara, Marjatta (1999). Näkymättömät polut. (Invisible paths.) In I. Sava (Ed.), Ajatuksia

monikulttuurisuudesta (pp. 35-38). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

APPENDIX 3


Saarnivaara, Marjatta (2000). Art education and the place of children: A methodological comment.

In L. Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context. Comparative studies of art education and children’s

drawings (pp. 75-80). Stockholm Insititute of Education Press.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta (2000). Raja on minussa. Pohdiskelua rajattamisen (transgression) vai-

keudesta (There is a border in me. Refl ections on the diffi culty of transgression). In I. Sava

(Ed.), Rajoilla 2. Rajansa myös taiteella (pp. 38-42). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta (2003). Kohtaamisia maastossa – lähtökohtien teoreettinen paikantaminen

(Encounters in the terrain - locating the starting points in theory). In J. Varto, M. Saarnivaara,

& H. Tervahattu (Eds.), Kohtaamisia taiteen ja tutkimuksen maastoissa (pp. 12-23). Hamina:

Akatiimi.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta & Varto, Juha (2000). Taidekasvatus ansana (Art education as a trap). In

I. Sava & M. Räsänen (Eds.), Näkökulmia taidekasvatukseen (pp. 43-50). Helsinki: University

of Art and Design.

Salminen, Antero (1996). Kuva ja näkeminen (Image and viewing). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen

(Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 68-75). Helsinki: University of

Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri (1996). Tutkiva mieli. Taidekasvattaja tietoisuuden kehityspyörteissä (An inves-

tigative mind. The art educator and the developing consciousness). In L. Piironen & A.

Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja. Helsinki: University of Art

and Design.

Sava, Inkeri (1997). Taito – ilmaisu – oppiminen (Skill – expression – learning). In R. Jakku-

Sihvonen (Ed.), Onnistuuko oppiminen. Oppimistuloksien ja opetuksen laadun arviointiperusteita

peruskoulussa ja lukiossa. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Sava, Inkeri (1998). The art educator as researcher. In L. Lindström (Ed.), Nordic visual arts

research. A theoretical and methodological review (pp. 33-42). Stockholm Institute of Education

Press.

Sava, Inkeri (1998). Taiteen ja tieteen kietoutuminen tutkimuksessa (The intertwining of art

and science in research). In M. Bardy (Ed.), Taide tiedon lähteenä. Helsinki: Stakes/Atena.

Sava, Inkeri (1999). Käsityön ja kuvataiteitten myyttiset rihmastot (The mythical threads of

handicrafts and visual art). In A.-M. Raunio & P. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen (Eds.), Attachments.

Kirjoituksia käsityötieteestä. Kuopio: Kuopio Academy of Arts and Crafts.

Sava, Inkeri (2000). The little mermaid – can a researcher in her fi fties be a child... and look at

the child inside herself? In L. Lindström (Ed.), The cultural context. Comparative studies of art

education and children’s drawings (pp. 104-115). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Sava, Inkeri (2000). Verenperintö (The legacy of blood). In I. Sava (Ed.), Rajoilla 1. Rajattajat ja

rajojen ylittäjät (pp. 28-35). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Sava, Inkeri (2003). Ole hyvä hänelle. Puhetta välittämisen taiteesta (Be good to her. Discus-

sions on the art of caring). In M. Krappala & T. Pääjoki (Eds.), Taide ja toiseus. Syrjästä yhteisöön.

Helsinki: Stakes.

Sava, Inkeri (2003). Rakkaus ja toivo taiteen yhteiskunnallisena viestinä (Love and hope as

societal messages of art). In J. Varto, M. Saarnivaara & H. Tervahattu (Eds.), Kohtaamisia

taiteen ja tutkimuksen maastoissa (pp. 196-211). Hamina: Akatiimi.

APPENDIX 3


Sava, Inkeri, Bardy, Marjatta, & Krappala, Mari (2004). Arts and narratives as ways of affi liation

and diversity. In V. Puuronen, A. Häkkinen, A. Pylkkänen, T. Sandlund, & R. Toivanen (Eds.),

New challenges for the welfare society (pp. 361-383). University of Joensuu.

Sava, Inkeri & Katainen, Arja (2004). Taide ja tarinallisuus itsen ja toisen kohtaamisen tilana

(Art and narrative as a space for encountering oneself and the other). In I. Sava & V. Vesanen-

Laukkanen (Eds.), Taiteeksi tarinoitu oma elämä (pp. 22-39). Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.

Sava, Inkeri & Nuutinen, Kari (2000). Sanan ja kuvan kohtauspaikalla (At the meeting place of

world and picture). In I. Sava (Ed.), Rajoilla 2. Rajansa myös taiteella (pp. 20-37). Helsinki:


Savolainen, Miina (2002). Maailman ihanin tyttö (The sweetest girl in the world). In I. Sava &

M. Bardy (Eds.), Taiteellinen toiminta, elämäntarinat ja syrjäytyminen (pp. 35-40). Helsinki:


Savolainen, Miina (2004). Maailman ihanin lapsi – valokuva perheessä (The most wonderful

child of the world – photograph in the family): In L. Piironen (Ed.), Leikin pikkujättiläinen

(pp. 128-144). Helsinki: WSOY.

Sederholm, Helena (2006). Lopputuloksesta prosessiin (From product to process). In K. Kettunen,

M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100

vuotta (pp. 50-58). Helsinki: Like.

Suojala, Marja & Virkkala, Sinikka (1999). Lastenkulttuurin kuvia ja tarinoita (Images and stories

of children’s culture). In A. Puurula (Ed.), Moni- ja interkulttuurinen taidekasvatus (pp. 179-203).


Tarkka, Minna (1996). Tietokoneesta taitokoneeksi. Viisi kysymystä tietokoneista, oppimisesta ja

taidekasvatuksesta (From information-computers to skills-computers. Five questions about

computers, learning and art education). In L. Piironen & A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosi-

sata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 60-65). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Trygg, Tarja (2001). The ambiguity of a picture – The fascination of a photograph. In P. Määttänen

(Ed.), Pragmatist viewpoints on art. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Tuupanen, Seija (2002). Moniroolisen taidekasvattajan tarina opetusportfoliona (The story of a

multiroled art educator in a portfolio). In M. Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvatai-

dekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 18-24). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Töyssy, Seppo (1995). Viestintäkasvatus kuviksessa (Communication education in art education).

In I. Grönholm (Ed.), Kuvien maailma (pp. 69-79). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Töyssy, Seppo (1996). Kuvaamataito nykykoulussa (Art education in contemporary school). In

L. Piironen & A. Salminen (Eds.), Kuvitella vuosisata. Taidekasvatuksen juhlakirja (pp. 45-53).


Ulkuniemi, Seija (2002). Yksi sydän – monta suonta (ja juonta) (One heart – many veins). In M.

Räsänen (Ed.), MoniKko. Moniroolinen kuvataidekasvattaja korkeakoulussa (pp. 8-12). Helsinki:


Ulkuniemi, Seija (2006). Parantavia paljastuksia. Yksityisvalokuvat taidekasvatuksellisena väli-

neenä (Healing revelations. Private photographs as tools in art education). In M. Mäkiranta

& R. Brusila (Eds.), Kuvakulmia. Puheenvuoroja kuvista ja kuvallisesta kulttuurista (pp. 35-54).

Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press.

APPENDIX 3


Vanhatapio, Tuula (2006). Kuvataidekouluun jytyämään – toiminnallista taidekasvatusta. (Full

swing in art school – art education in action). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, &

M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 118-124). Helsinki:

Like.

Vanhatapio, Tuula (2006). Taidemuseo ja pojat (Art museums and boys). In E. Happonen & K.

Kaija (Eds.), Miksi aurinko on vihreä? (pp. 77-85). Rovaniemi Art Museum.

Varto, Juha (1999). Monikulttuurinen – mutta kenen? (Multicultural – but whose?). In I. Sava

(Ed.), Ajatuksia monikulttuurisuudesta (pp. 6-8). Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Varto, Juha (2000). Rajattaminen ja rajalliset. Fragmentteja teemasta (Border making and

bordered. Fragments of a theme). In I. Sava (Ed.), Rajoilla 1. Rajattajat ja rajojen ylittäjät


Varto, Juha (2002). Investigating bringing-forth. In S. Kiljunen & M. Hannula (Eds.), Artistic

research (pp. 49-58). Helsinki: Academy of Fine Arts.

Varto, Juha (2003). Todellisuuden suora kirjoitus (Straight script of reality). In J. Varto, M.

Saarnivaara, & H. Tervahattu (Eds.), Kohtaamisia taiteen ja tutkimuksen maastoissa (pp. 48-59).

Hamina: Akatiimi.

Varto, Juha (2004). Kasvatus taitoon – avain yksittäiseen (Education into skills – a key to the

individual). In M. Taajaamo (Ed.), Suunnistuksia. University of Jyväskylä.

Varto, Juha (2005). Taide on avoin tila (Art is an open space). In I. Porna (Ed.), Lahden visuaalinen

(pp. 10-13). Lahti: Visu-keskus.

Varto, Juha (2006). Seuraava askel – nykytaiteen viesti kuvataidekasvatukselle (Next step –

the message of contemporary art to visual art education). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S.

Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä. Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 149-157).

Helsinki: Like.

Vesanen-Laukkanen, Virpi (2004). Katson ulos kuvastani (Viewing out from inside my image).

In I. Sava & V. Vesanen-Laukkanen (Eds.), Taiteeksi tarinoitu oma elämä (pp. 59-76). Jyväskylä:

PS-kustannus.

Vesanen-Laukkanen, Virpi & Martin, Mari (2002). Omaelämäkerrallinen taide. Työskentelyn

perusteita etsimässä (Autobiographical art. In search of the foundations of one’s work). In

I. Sava & M. Bardy (Eds.), Taiteellinen toiminta, elämäntarinat ja syrjäytyminen (pp. 16-24).


Viitanen, Pirjo & Kaartinen, Vuokko (2002). Taide kasvattaa (Art as an educator). Äidinkielen

ja kirjallisuuden sekä kuvataiteen näkökulma. In E. Lehtinen & T. Hiltunen (Eds.), Oppiminen

ja opettajuus. University of Turku.

von Bonsdorff , Pauline (2006). Taide, tieto ja kauneuden haaste (Art, knowledge and the challenge

of beauty). In K. Kettunen, M. Hiltunen, S. Laitinen, & M. Rastas (Eds.), Kuvien keskellä.

Kuvataideopettajaliitto 100 vuotta (pp. 158-168). Helsinki: Like.

APPENDIX 3


ArticlesErkkilä, Jaana (2005). Käsi katsoo Bruegeliä ja nuoriso nauraa [Pdf] (A hand observes at Brueghel

and the youth is laughing). Synnyt / Origins, 4/2005, pp. 26-32.

Fontell, Teija (2006). Taidekasvatuksen ja yrityselämän yhteiselo [Pdf] (Coexistence of art edu-

cation and business life). Synnyt / Origins 1/2006, pp. 1-23.

Hassi, Antti (1997). Education through art – kuvaamataitoa vai kuvataidetta. (Education

through art – visual skills or high art). Taidekasvatuslehti Stylus (Journal of art education),

90(1), pp. 8-11.

Hiltunen, Mirja (2004). Erämaa opettaa. Kehollisesti ympäristön, taiteen ja yhteisön maisemis-

sa (The wilderness teaches. Physically in the landscape of environment, art and community).

Aikuiskasvatus (Adult education)(1/ 2004), pp. 54-59.

Hiltunen, Mirja (2005). The Fire Fox. Multisensory approach to art education in Lapland. Inter-

national Journal of Education through Art, 1(2), pp. 161-177.

Huhtinen, Aki-Mauri (2006). Musta informaatio ja sen energia [Pdf] (Black information and its

energy). Synnyt / Origins 3/2006, pp. 22-31.

Jokela, Timo & Hiltunen, Mirja (2003). Art pedagogical projects in northern wilderness and

villages. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 8(2), pp. 26-31.

Kallio, Mira (2005). Kuvataidekasvatuksen lyhyt kuolema [Pdf] (A short death of art educa-

tion). Synnyt / Origins, 3/2005, pp. 35-50.

Kallio, Mira (2006). Ajatella maalauksen kielellä [Pdf] (To think in the language of a painting).

Synnyt / Origins 3/2006, pp. 10-21.

Keskitalo, Anne K. (2003). Matkataiteen määrittelykehyksiä toiminnallisesta paikasta

nykytaiteen nomadismiin (Defi nitional frames of travel art from functional place to no-

madism in contemporary art). Kulttuurintutkimus, 20(2), pp. 45-51.

Krappala, Mari (2000). Pala(a)vaa tunteiden etiikkaa (Burning ethics of passions). Naistutkimus,

3/2000, pp. 69-73.

Kupiainen, Reijo (2005). Elokuva ja toisin katsomisen mahdollisuus [Pdf] (The fi lm and the

chance of viewing in another way). Synnyt / Origins 2/2005, pp. 1-12.

Niiniskorpi, Soile (2005). Elämänkehät: Kasvatuksen maailma [Pdf] (Life circles: The world of

education). Synnyt / Origins, 3/2005, pp. 89-97.

Niiniskorpi, Soile (2005). Kulttuuri – viljelyä ja saastuttamista [Pdf] (Culture – cultivation and

contamination). Synnyt / Origins, 2/2005, pp. 28-50.

Niiniskorpi, Soile (2005). Käden taidot ja kauneuden taju. Keskustelua taidekasvatuksen

1900-luvun Suomessa [Pdf] (Hand skills and sense of beauty. Discussions of the goals of art

education in the 20th century Finland). Synnyt / Origins, 4/2005, pp. 44-62.

Niiniskorpi, Soile (2005). Mielikuvitus ja sen kasvattaminen [Pdf] (Imagination and its deve-

lopment). Synnyt / Origins, 3/2005, pp. 67-88.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina (2003). Intertekstuaalinen kuvakirja – haasteellista katsottavaa (In-

tertextual picturebook – a challenge for viewing). Virikkeitä, 4/2003, pp. 35-39.

APPENDIX 3


Paatela-Nieminen, Martina (2005). Applying intertextual method in museum pedagogy: Stu-

dying portraits as cultural texts at Sinebrychoff Art Museum. International Journal of Educa-

tion through Art, 2(3), pp. 199-210.

Paatela-Nieminen, Martina & Servomaa, Sonja (2006). Art education in Finland. Forum, 13(21),

pp. 117-120.

Parekh, Bhikhu (2005). Kuinka sitoutua kulttuuriseen monimuotoisuuteen [Pdf] (How to commit

oneself to cultural variety). Synnyt / Origins, 3/2005, pp. 1-21.

Parviala, Hannele (2002). Kuvataidetta ruudulla – media museossa (Art in the screen – media in

the museum). Taidekasvatuslehti Stylus (Journal of art education), 96(1), pp. 29-31.

Pohjakallio, Pirkko (1998). New and old: Multimedia as a tool for providing interpretation and

meaning. Refl ections on the art education history project. Journal of Art and Design Education,

17(3), 303-310.

Pusa, Tiina (2006). Sosiaalialan taiteistumisen arkeologiaa [Pdf] (Archeology of artifi cation of

social services). Synnyt / Origins, 3/2006, pp. 1-9.

Pääjoki, Tarja (2005). Lapsi kuvassa - kuka katsoo? [Pdf] (A child in the picture – who’s viewing?).

Synnyt / Origins, 4/2005, pp. 1-15.

Rantala, Kati (1997). Narrative identity and artistic narration. The story of adolescents’ art.

Journal of Material Culture, 2(2), pp. 219-239.

Rastas, Marja (2003). Kuvallisen alan opinnoista välineet oman erityisyyden etsimiseen (Art

studies providing tools for fi nding one’s specialty). Kansanopisto-lehti, 75(4), pp. 31-32.

Räsänen, Marjo (1999). Building bridges. Experiential art understanding. Journal of Art and

Design Education, 18(2), pp. 195-205.

Räsänen, Marjo (1999). Opettajaidentiteeteistä ja taiteellisesta tutkimisesta opetussuunnitelman

perusteisiin (From teacher identities and artistic research to the foundations of curriculum).

Taidekasvatuslehti Stylus (Journal of art education), 93(3), pp. 27-30.

Räsänen, Marjo (2003). Ammattina kuvisope (Art teaching as profession). Taidekasvatuslehti

Stylus (Journal of art education), 97(2), pp. 6-9.

Räsänen, Marjo (2004). Navigointia tutkimuksen uusilla vesillä (Navigating the new waters of

research.). Taidekasvatuslehti Stylus, 98(1), pp. 8-11; 35-36.

Räsänen, Marjo (2005). Multi-roled and skilled teachers of art. International Journal of Education

through Art, 1(1), pp. 53-63.

Saario, Jaana (2005). Kuvataiteilijan esteettisestä havainnosta [Pdf] (On the aesthetic observation

of a visual artist). Synnyt / Origins, 1/2005, pp. 85-104.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta (2003). Art as inquiry: The autopsy of (art) experience. Qualitative

Inquiry, 9(4), pp. 580-602.

Saarnivaara, Marjatta & Varto, Juha (2005). Art education as a trap. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 49(5), pp. 487-501.

Sava, Inkeri (1996). Oppiminen luovana ja todellisuutta konstruoivana toimintana (Learning as

creative and reality constructing action). Musiikkikasvatus (Music education), 1(2).

Sava, Inkeri (2000). The little mermaid. The construction of self through narrative and the

visual arts. Journal of Multicultural and Cross-cultural Research in Art Education, 18.

APPENDIX 3


Sava, Inkeri & Levo, Merja (2000). Taiteen mahdollisuudet ja tehtävät monikulttuuristuvassa

koulussa. (Possibilities and functions of art in a school becoming multicultural.). Arsis, 3,

pp. 12-16.

Sava, Inkeri & Nuutinen, Kari (2003). At the meeting place of world and picture: Between art

and inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 9(4), pp. 515-534.

Seddiki, Pirjo (2005). Kandinskyn näkymättömän taide [Pdf] (Kandinsky’s art of the invisible).


Seddiki, Pirjo (2005). Rahat vai henki. Jeff Koons ja minareetin kutsu [Pdf] (Money or death.

Jeff Koons and the call of the minarettes). Synnyt / Origins, 3/2005, pp. 22-34.

Seddiki, Pirjo (2005). Sokean muistelmat, piirtämisen surutyö [Pdf] (Memoirs of the blind,

grief work of drawing). Synnyt / Origins, 4/2005, pp. 33-43.

Suominen, Anniina (2006). Writing with photographs writing self: Using artistic methods in

the investigation of identity. International Journal of Education through Art, 2(2), pp. 139-156.

Tuominen, Tapio (2005). Vallan piiloista ja työkaluista [Pdf] (Hiding places and tools of power).


Varto, Juha (1996). Taidepedagogiikan fi losofi sista perusteista (Philosophical foundations of art

pedagogy). Tiedepolitiikka, 1/96, p. 57.

Varto, Juha (2003). Kuvakieltokulttuurin kuvamaailma ja arjen moraali (The image world of an

iconoclastic culture and everyday morals). Niin&näin 2/2003, pp. 50-53.

Varto, Juha (2005). Elokuvan katsomisesta [Pdf] (On viewing a fi lm). Synnyt / Origins, 2/2005,

pp. 13-27.

Varto, Juha (2005). Valta ja alistamisen välineet [Pdf] (Power and tools of subordination). Synnyt

/ Origins, 2/2005, pp. 71-85.

Varto, Juha (2005). Älä tulkitse! Kokeile! [Pdf] (Do not interpret! Experiment!) Synnyt / Origins,

4/2005, pp. 16-25.

Varto, Juha (2006). Julmuuden teatteri: Jacopetti & Prosperi [Pdf] (The theatre of cruelty:

Jacopetti & Prosperi). Synnyt / Origins 3/2006, pp. 32-43.

Varto, Juha (2006). Tutkimus halusta: Catherine Breillat [Pdf] (A study of lust: Catherine Breillat).

Synnyt / Origins 1/2006, pp. 34-41.

ReportsGranö, Päivi, Korkeakoski, Esko, & Laukka, Maria (Eds). (2006). Taikalamppujen valossa. Lasten-

kulttuurikeskusten arviointi (In the light of magical lamps. Evaluation of cultural centres for

children). Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education.

Granö, Päivi & Laitinen, Sirkka (1998). Kuvaamataidon opetuksen tuloksellisuuskuva perus-

koulussa. Tapaustutkimus viidessä ala-asteen ja kolmessa yläasteen koulussa (Results of art

education in the comprehensive school. A case study in fi ve elementary and three lower sec-

ondary schools). In E. Korkeakoski (Ed.), Tapaustutkimuksia peruskoulun kuvaamataidon ja

musiikin opetuksesta lukuvuonna 1997–1998. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

APPENDIX 3


Hassi, Marjatta, Heinimaa, Elisse, & Laukkarinen, Sirkka (1998). Raportti työpajaopetuksen

järjestämisestä lasten ja nuorten kuvataidekouluissa 1996–1998 (Report of workshops in art

schools for children and youth years 1996-1998). Helsinki: The Association of Art Schools

for Children and Youth in Finland.

Korkeakoski, Esko (1998). Lasten ja nuorten taidekasvatus peruskoulussa ja lukiossa (Art edu-

cation for children and youth in Finnish secondary and high schools). Helsinki: Finnish

National Board of Education.

Korkeakoski, Esko (Ed.). (1998). Lasten ja nuorten taidekasvatus peruskoulussa ja lukiossa. Taide-

kasvatuksen perustelut, opettajien kelpoisuudet, opetusresurssit, oppimistulokset ja kehittämistarpeet

(Art education for children and youth in Finnish comprehensive and upper secondary

schools. Rationale for art education, teacher competencies, teaching resources, learning

outcomes and need for development). Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education.

Raitmaa, Minna & Venäläinen, Päivi (2006). Kiasman kiertokoulun loppuraportti (Final report

from the Kiasma ambulatory school). Helsinki: Museum of Contemporary Art Kiasma.

Sederholm, Helena (2001). Taiteen tulkkina – Selvitys taidemuseoiden erityisluonteesta (Interpreting

art - An account of the special characteristics of art museums). Helsinki: Edita.

Suomen lasten ja nuorten kuvataidekoulujen liitto (The Association of Art Schools for Chil-

dren and Youth in Finland) (2004). Lasten ja nuorten kuvataidekoulut vuonna 2004. Yhteenveto

kysely tutkimuksella kerätyistä kuvataidekoulujen tiedoista (Art schools for children and youth

in 2004. Summary of questionnaire-based data). Helsinki.

APPENDIX 3


APPENDIX 4

Icelandic Publications 1995–2007

Ph.D. thesisHelgadóttir, Guðrún (1997). Icelandic craft teachers’ curriculum identity as refl ected in life histories.

Vancouver, Can: The University of British Columbia.

M.Ed. thesesÁrnadóttir, Björg (2007). Forvitni, skilningur, áræði – um námskrá og kennsluhætti við myndlis-

tadeild LHÍ [Curiosity, understanding, courage – about curriculum and pedagogy in the

department of visual arts at the Iceland Academy of Arts]. The University of Iceland,

Faculty of Social Sciences.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1989). A survey of the attitudes of Icelandic Art and Craft teachers toward

curriculum and practice in their subject area. Vancouver, Can.: University of British Columbia.

Henttinen, Guðrún H. (2000). Textílmennt með augum textílkennara [Textile education through

the eyes of textile educators]. The University of Iceland, Faculty of Social Sciences.

Ingimarsdóttir, Jóhanna Þ. (2000). Höndin hlýði sálinni og hreyfi st sem hugurinn vill. Áherslur

tólf myndlistakennara í kennslu [The hand moves as the mind wants. Emphasis of twelve art

educators in teaching]. Iceland University of Education.

Jónsdóttir, Ásthildur B. (2003). Listavefur krakka: tölvu- og upplýsingatækni í myndlistakennslu

[Kids’ art web: computer- and information technology in art education]. Unpublished M.Ed.

–theses: Iceland University of Education. Verkefnið skiptist í kennsluvef, Listavefur krakka”

og fræðilega ritgerð.

Jónsdóttir, Svala (2007). Að horfa og sjá. Listskoðun með börnum [To look and see. Art viewing

with children]. Iceland University of Education.

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (2003). The role of art and art making in adolescents’ everyday life: a case

study. University of Akureyri.

Kristinsdóttir, AlmaDís. (2007). Góðar stundir: safnfræðsla og fj ölskyldur [Learning moments:

Museum education and families]. University of Akureyri.

Ólafsdóttir, Kristin H. (1986). Curriculum and instruction in Art Education. Columbia, Mo., The

University of Missouri.

Ólafsdóttir, Aðalbjörg M. (2007). Tæknin má ekki yfi rtaka handverkið. Notkun tölvu- og upplýsing-

atækni í kennslu sex myndlistakennara í grunnskólum [Technology must not overtake the craft.

Use of ICT in the teaching of six art teachers]. Iceland University of Education.


BooksArnarsdóttir, Hrönn (1998). Heimur Litanna: kennslubók í litafræði [World of colour: book of

colour theory]. Reykjavík: Una.

Björnsdóttir, Gæfl aug (2001). Örvandi myndlist: leið til þroska [Stimulative visual art: a road to

development]. Akranes: Þýðingar og túlkun.

Leplar, Anna C., Briem, Kartín, Friðbergsdóttir, Margrét & Jónasdóttir, Sólveig H. (1995). Mynd-

mennt I [Visual Art I]. Reykjavík: Námsgagnastofnun.

Leplar, Anna C., Briem, Kartín, Friðbergsdóttir, Margrét & Jónasdóttir, Sólveig H. (1999). Mynd-

mennt II [Visual Art II]. Reykjavík: Námsgagnastofnun.

Leplar, Anna C. & Tryggvadóttir, Margrét (2006). Skoðum myndlist – heimsókn í Listasafn

Reykjavíkur [Let’s look at art – visit to Reykjavík Art Museum]. Reykjavík: Mál og Menning.

ChaptersHelgadóttir, Guðrún (1997). Samkennsla kynjanna í hannyrðum og smíði [The co-education

of genders in crafts: A step in the right direction?]. In H. Kress & R. Traustadóttir (Eds.),

Íslenskar kvennarannsóknir (pp. 196-204). Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands Rannsóknastofa í

kvenna fræðum.

Júlíusdóttir Rósa K. (2006). Estetikens roll i de ungas bildundervisning [The role of aesthetics

in art education for the young]. In E. Alerby & J. Elídóttir (Eds.), Lärandets konst – betraktelser

av estetiska dimensioner i lärandet. Lund, Sw.: Studentlitteratur.

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (2005). Með teikningu verður þekking ekki dauður bókstafur, heldur

lifandi athöfn [Through drawing knowledge becomes a living action]. In T. Þorsteinsson &

B. Guðmundsson (Eds.), Andans arfur Tíu erindi um manninn, menntafrömuðinn, sálfræðinginn

og bókfræðinginn Guðmund Finnbogason (pp. 119-126). Akureyri: Háskólinn á Akureyri.

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (2007). Gildi fagurfræði í myndlistakennslu ungra barna [The value of

aesthetics in art education for children]. In K. Bjarnadóttir & S. K. Hannesdóttir (Eds.),

Þekking – þjálfun – þroski (pp. 119-128). Reykjavík: DKG.

ArticlesHelgadóttir, Guðrún (2003). Námsmat í myndlist, mat á myndlistarkennslu og aðferðir list-

gagnrýni [Evaluation and assessment in art, art education and art criticism]. In Netla (web-

journal on education), Iceland University of education.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2001). Art, sloyd and the good life. In Visioner om slöjd och slöjdpeda-

gogik, Techne Serien B: 10/2001, 140-149. Published by Nordisk Forum För Forskning och

utvicklings arbete inom utbildning i slöjd (NordFo), Vasa, Fin.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2001). The historian framed in her picture of the past. In Visioner om

slöjd och slöjdpedagogik, Techne Serien B: 10/2001, 150-158. Published by Nordisk Forum För

Forskning och utvicklingsarbete inom utbildning i slöjd (NordFo), Vasa, Fin.

Helgadóttir, Guðrún (2000). Varðveisla og nýting: handlistir við aldahvörf [Crafts at the millen-

nium]. In Hugur og hönd, pp. 44-46.

APPENDIX 4


Helgadóttir, Guðrún (1995). In the family? The interrelationship of art and craft teachers.

Working papers in Art Education (13), pp. 109-114.

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (1998). Að vinna með kenningar Elliots Eisners [Working with Elliot

Eisner´s theories]. Ný menntamál, 3(16), pp. 11-15.

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (2006). Hlutverk myndsköpunar í daglegu lífi ungmenna [The role of art

making in adolescents’ everyday life]. Uppeldi og menntun 15 (1), pp. 85-102. Reykjavík: The

University Research Center.

Jónsdóttir, Svala (2002). Teiknað með tölvu. Athugun á gildi teikniforrits fyrir born [Drawing

with a computer. Studying the value of drawing programs for children]. In Netla (webjournal

on education), Iceland University of education.

Reports Guttormsdóttir, Helena G. (1999). Safnið og samfélagið [The museum and the community].

Reykjavík: Listasafn Reykjavíkur.

Júlíusdóttir, Rósa K. (2006). Listabúðir listræn nálgun í námi [Art camp in art school]. Skýrsla

unnin fyrir Myndlistaskólann í Reykjavík og Fossvogsskóla þar sem lagt er mat á Listabúðir

sem er samvinnuverkefni Myndlistaskólans og þriggja grunnskóla í Reykjavík. Akureyri:

Háskólinn á Akureyri.

Jónsdóttir, Svala (1999). Leikskólabörn í Myndlistaskóla: Hugmyndir og kennsluaðferðir Margrétar

H. Blöndal [Pre-primary school children in Art School: the ideas and teaching methods

of Margret H. Blöndal]. Reykjavík: Eigindleg rannsókn á þróunarverkefni Myndlistaskóla

Reykjavíkur og leikskólans Dvergasteins. Myndmenntakennsla þriggja til fj ögurra ára barna.

Ólafsdóttir, Kristín H. (2005). Bleikir gíraff ar í Sæborg: Þróunarverkefni í leikskólanum Sæborg1999

– 2004 [Pink giraff es in Sæborg: development project]. Reykjavík: The University Research

Center.

Ólafsdóttir, Kristín H. (2005). Skýrsla um myndlistasýningu leikskólans Sæborgar 20. apríl – 5. maí

2005 [Report about an art exhibition of the children at Sæborg pre-primary school] Intro-

duction. Reykjavík: Menntasvið Reykjavíkurborgar.

Þorleifsdóttir, Þórhildur H. (1997). Skýrsla um DBAE: margþætta myndmennt í daglegri kennslu

[DBAE multiple art education in daily teaching]. Reykjavík: Þróunarsjóður grunnskóla.

APPENDIX 4


APPENDIX 5

Norwegian Publications 1995–2006

Ph.D. thesesBorgen, Jorunn Spord (1998). Kunnskapens stabilitet og fl yktighet: om forholdet mellom amatører og

profesjonelle i kunstfeltet [Stability and transitoriness of knowledge: about relations between

amateurs and professionals in arts]. Universitetet i Bergen: Det historisk-fi losofi ske fakultet,

Institutt for kulturstudier og kunsthistorie.

Gulliksen, Marte (2006). Constructing a formbild – an inquiry into the dynamical and hierarchical

aspects of the hermeneutical fi lters controlling the formbild construction in design education situa-

tions (Vol. 34). Oslo School of Architecture.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (1996). Kulturarv og kulturarvoverføring i grunnskolen med vekt på den

estetiske dimensjonen: en begreps- og erfaringsanalyse med et didaktisk perspektiv [Cultural her-

itage and transference of cultural heritage in compulsory school emphasizing the aesthetic

dimension: an analysis of terms and experience in an educational perspective]. Universitetet

i Oslo: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet.

Hopperstad, Marit Holm (2002). Når barn skaper mening med tegning - en studie av seksåring-

ers tegninger i et semiotisk perspektiv [When children create meaning with their drawings -

a study of drawings made by six-year-olds in a semiotic perspective]. Trondheim: Norges

teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologile-

delse, Pedagogisk institutt.

Kjosavik, Steinar (1998). Fra ferdighetsfag til forming: utviklingen fra tegning, sløyd og håndarbeid

til forming sett i et læreplanhistorisk perspektiv [From skills to forming: development from dra-

wing, sloyd and textile to forming examined in a historical perspective of the curriculum].

Universitetet i Oslo: Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet.

Lidén, Hilde (2000). Barn – tid – rom – skiftende posisjoner: kulturelle læreprosesser i et pluralistisk

Norge [Children – time – space – changing positions: cultural learning processes in a plura-

listic Norway]. Trondheim: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet.

Lønnå, Elisabeth (2002). Helga Eng: psykolog og pedagog i barnets århundre [Helga Eng: psychologist

and pedagogue in the children’s century]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2000). Drawing and spatial representations. Refl ections on purposes for art

education in the compulsory school (Vol. 2). Oslo School of Architecture.

Pedersen, Eirin Marie Solheim (2004). Om teckning, tecken, text och teori: aktteckning i ett kontex-

tuellt, diskursivt och paradigmatisk perspektiv [About drawing, signs, text and theory: nude

drawing in a contextual, discursive and paradigmatic perspective] (Vol. 16). Oslo School of

Architecture.


Samuelsen, Arne Marius (2003). Kunstformidling for barn i kunstmuseum og skole – med vekt på

formidlerrollen [Dissemination of art in museums and school – emphasizing the dissemination

role]. Bergen: Institutt for kulturstudier og kunsthistorie.

Sæthre-McGuirk, Ellen (2003). Susanne Langer’s Aesthetic Theory and its Application to the Works

of Art by Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman. Leuven, Belg.: Katholieke Universiteit i Leuven.

Ulvestad, Hilde Aga (2001). Let us learn to dream, gentlemen: en undersøkelse om forholdet mellom

visuelt skapende arbeid og potensialet for læring [Let us learn to dream, gentlemen: a research

on the relation between visual creative work and the potential for learning] (Vol. 4). Oslo

School of Architecture.

Østby, Guri (2006). Barn – kunst – danning: Møter mellom barn og kunst som danningsarena for

barn i grunnskolen [Children – art – education: Children encounterings with art as educa-

tional arena in primary and secondary school]. Universitetet i Bergen.

Aakre, Bjørn Magne (2005). Formgiving og design i et didaktisk perspektiv [Design in an educational

perspective]. Trondheim: NTNU.

Master ThesesApproximately 500 M.A. theses in Art and design education has been written since 1976. They

are not listed in this book. Can be found at:

http://ask.bibsys.no/ask/action/result?cmd=&kilde=biblio%3AHIO&fi d=avdelingsamling&

term=hioppesthoved&op=and&fi d=bd&term=&avdeling=&arstall=&sortering=sortdate-

&treff PrSide=10

http://ask.bibsys.no/ask/action/result?cmd=&kilde=biblio%3AHIO&fi d=avdelingsamling&

term=notoddenharbt&op=and&fi d=bd&term=&avdeling=&arstall=&sortering=sortdate-

&treff PrSide=10

BooksAdam, Milena (Ed.). (1995). Kunstfagene til besvær eller begjær? [Arts in school – inconvenience

or pleasure?]. Vollen: Tell forlag.

Brekketo, Birthe (2006). Samtaler om pakistansk bildekultur: Åtte norskpakistanske ungdommer

forteller [Conversations around Pakistani visual culture: Eight young Norwegian born Pakistani

speaks] (No. 15). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avd. for estetiske fag.

Brænne, Karen (2002). Upåverka?Læraren sin bruk av eigen estetisk produksjon i undervisning

[Uninfl uenced? The teachers’ use of his own aesthetic production in teaching] (No. 10).

Høgskolen i Oslo, Avd. for estetiske fag.

Danbolt, Gunnar (1999). Blikk for bilder: formidling av billedkunst til barn og ungdom [Eye for

pictures: dissemination of visual art to children and youth] (Vol. 4). Oslo: Norsk kulturråd.

Danbolt, Gunnar & Myhr, Eirik (2002). Blikk for bilder: om tolkning og formidling av billedkunst

[Eye for pictures: about interpretation and dissemination of visual art]. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.

APPENDIX 5


Digranes, Ingvild (2006). Bygg meg eit bilete – skap meg ei verd: Skulptur i samtidskunst og undervisning

[Create a picture – build a world: Sculpture in contemporary art and art education] (No. 6).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Due, Martin (2002). Skrevet i stein: En undersøkelse av et innholdstypifi serende bildespråk [Written

in stone: An investigation of semiotic typifi cation in pictorial language] (No. 20). Høgskolen

i Oslo.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Michl, Jan (Eds.). (2001). Towards a disciplinary identity of the making

professions: The Oslo Millennium Reader (Vol. 4). Oslo School of Architecture.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (Eds.). (2004). Discussing transdisciplinarity:

Making professions and the new mode of knowledge production. The Nordic Reader 2004 (Vol. 6).


Fauske, Laila Belinda (2002). Det kjente og det ukjente: et kulturmøte [The known and the

unknown: a cultural meeting] (No. 19). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avd. for estetiske fag.

Fossum, Rønnaug (2006). Samtidsarkeologi og visuelt fast food: Kunst, IKEA og det bildepedago-

giske feltet [Contemporary archaeology and visual fast-food: Art, IKEA and the fi eld of visual

art] (No. 14). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2003). Se tennene!: barnetegning - en skatt og et slags spor: en sosiokulturell

analyse av barns tegneprosesser i barnehagen [“Look at the teeth!”: children’s drawings - a

treasure and some kind of a path: A sociocultural analysis of children’s drawing processes in

preschool] (Vol. 4). Høgskolen i Nesna.

Fyrileiv, Errol (2003). Et sted å undre seg med: samspillet mellom sted og skulptur [A place to wonder:

interaction between space and sculpture] (No. 20). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Gryte, Mari Anne Ellingsen (2005). Tegn i vinden [Signs in the wind] (No. 10). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Gullberg, Vivian Hernar (1996). Barns bildeskaping: utvikling og forutsetninger [Children’s picture

making: development and conditions] (2. ed.). Høgskolen Stord/Haugesund.

Gunnerød, Sissel (2006). Poesi og performativitet – broderi i en ny kontekst [Poetry and performa-

tivity – embroidery in a new context] (No. 13). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2000). Kulturforståelse hos lærere i Telemark anno 2000 [Teachers’ under-

standing of culture in the Norwegian region, Telemark, in the year 2000] (Vol. 4). Porsgrunn:

Høgskolen i Telemark.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2001). Læreren som kulturbærer og kulturbygger [The teacher as carrier and

builder of culture]. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2003). Den estetiske dimensjonen og kunstfeltet: ulike tilnærminger [The

aesthetic dimension and the fi eld arts: diff erent approaches] (Vol. 7). Porsgrunn: Høgskolen

i Telemark.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2003). Teachers’ understanding of culture and transference of culture: two

investigations in the Norwegian region, Telemark, with special reference to cultural heritage (Vol. 9).

Bø: Telemark University College.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2004). Kultur og individ: kulturpedagogiske perspektiv på kulturforståelse,

kulturprosesser og identitet [Culture and individual: culture-pedagogical perspectives on

cultural understanding, cultural processes and identity]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

APPENDIX 5


Halvorsen, Else Marie (2005). Forskning gjennom skapende arbeid?: et fenomenologisk-hermeneutisk

utgangspunkt for en drøfting av kunstfaglig FoU-arbeid [Research through creative work?: a

phenomenologic-hermeneutical basis for discussions on research and development in arts]

(Vol. 5). Porsgrunn: Høgskolen i Telemark.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2005). Verdier og skole: om verdier, verdiformidling og verdikonstruksjon

i grunnskolen [Values and school: about values, transference of values and construction of

values in compulsory school]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Hodneland, Kari Bjørka (1998). Forskjønnelsen av de små, stygge stedene: det off entlige uterom som

pedagogisk verktøy [Embellishment of the small ugly places: the public outdoor area as an

educational tool]. Oslo kommune.


on aesthetic learning processes]. Copenhagen, Den.: Dansklærerforeningen.

Hopperstad, Marit Holm. (2005). Alt begynner med en strek – når barn skaper mening med tegning

[Everything starts with a line – when children create meaning with their drawing]. Oslo:

Cappelen.

Haabesland, Anny Å. & Vavik, Ragnhild E. (2000). Kunst og håndverk – hva og hvorfor [Art and

crafts – what and why]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Johnsrud, Ellen (2005). “Veit ikkje, det er vel kunst antakelegvis”: Ei undersøking av betraktaren si

oppleving av utradisjonelle visningskontekstar i møte med det poetiske bilete [“I don’t know, it’s

probably art” – A research on the viewers experience of untraditional viewing contexts in

encounters with the poetic image] (No. 8). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avd. for estetiske fag.

Juell, Elisabeth & Norskog, Trygve-Johan (2006). Å løpe mot stjernene: om estetisk dannelse, krea-

tivitet og skapende prosesser [To run towards the stars: about aesthetic education, creativity

and creative processes]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Kjosavik, Steinar (2001). Fra tegning, sløyd og håndarbeid til kunst og håndverk: en faghistorie gjennom

150 år [From drawing, sloyd and textile to art and crafts: a curriculum history through 150

years]. Vollen: Tell.

Kjosavik, Steinar (2003). Fra forming til kunst og håndverk: fagutvikling og skolepolitikk 1974–1997

[From forming to art and crafts: curricula evolvement and school politics 1974–1997] (Vol. 5).

Porsgrunn: Høgskolen i Telemark.

Krohg, Morten (2002). Poetikk og informasjon [Poetics and information] (No.13). Høgskolen i

Oslo, Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Krohg, Morten (2005). G. nr 14. B. nr 52 Sande i Vestfold: et narrativt billedprosjekt [“G. nr 14. B.

nr 52 Sande in Vestfold”: a narrative picture project] (No. 10). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avdeling for

estetiske fag.

Lidén, Hilde (2004). “Tørrfi sken stinka, men kahytten var topp”: en oppfølgingsstudie av to modeller

for organisering av Den kulturelle skolesekken [“The stockfi sh reeked but the cabin was cool”:

a follow-up study on two models for organising The cultural rucksack]. Oslo: Institutt for

samfunnsforskning.

Melbye, Ella (Ed.). (2002). Hovedfagsstudium i forming 25 år [Masters in forming – 25th anni-

versary] (Vol. 2). Notodden: Høgskolen i Telemark.

APPENDIX 5


Melbye, Ella (2003). Hovedfagsstudium i forming Notodden 1976–1999. Faglig innhold sett i lys av

det å forme [Master in art and design education Notodden 1976–1999. Content seen in the

perspective of creation]. Notodden: Høgskolen i Telemark.

Michl, Jan & Nielsen, Liv Merete (Eds.). (2005). Building a doctoral programme in architecture

and design. Oslo School of Architecture and Design.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (Ed.). (2004). DesignDialog – designforskning i et demokratisk perspektiv

[DesignDialog – design research in a democratic perspective] (No. 22). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Nielsen, Liv Merete & Digranes, Ingvild (Eds.). (2005). DesignDialog: design og fagdidaktiske

utfordringer [DesignDialog: design and educational challenges] (No. 33). Høgskolen i Oslo,

Avd. for estetiske fag.

Nielsen, Liv Merete & Digranes, Ingvild (Eds.). (2006). DesignDialog – Kunnskapsløftet og visuell

kompetanse [DesignDialog – The Knowledge Promotion and visual competence] (No. 24).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Nielsen, Liv Merete, Norum, Ragnar & Opstad, Kari Doseth (Eds.). (2006). Kunst, engasjement

og frosne tær: til minne om Øystein Cruikshank [Art, commitment and frozen toes: in

commemoration of Øystein Cruikshank]. Tromsø: Eureka: Høgskolen i Tromsø.

Paulsen, Brit (1996). Billedkunst og kunnskap [Visual art and knowledge]. Oslo: Cappelen.

Paulsen, Brit (1996). Estetik i förskolan [Aesthetics in pre-school]. Lund, Sw.: Studentlitteratur.

Paulsen, Brit (1999). Hvis sko fi kk tær – formidling av surrealistisk kunst i skolen [If shoes got toes

– dissemination of surrealistic art in school]. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.

Paulsen, Brit (2000). Formidling av kunst: pedagogen som formidler av billedkunst i skole og barnehage

[Dissemination of art: the teachers role as a link between visual art and children in school

and kindergarten]. Trondheim: Dronning Mauds minne.

Retvik, Trygve (2005). – om grafi kk, om enkle trykkteknikker, men mest om miljøvennlig grafi kk

[Printmaking and simple techniques, particulary nontoxic printmaking] (No. 16). Høgskolen

i Oslo, Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Retvik, Trygve (2005). Printmaking and simple techniques, particulary nontoxic printmaking (No. 26).

Oslo University College.

Samuelsen, Arne Marius (1995). Billedboken: en glede og utfordring også for voksne [The picture

book: a pleasure and a challenge also for adults]. Oslo: Pedagogisk forum.

Samuelsen, Arne Marius (2003). Formidling av kunst til barn og unge [Dissemination of art to

children and youth]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Skregelid, Lisbet (2005). “Det var ganske gøy faktisk”: En undersøkelse om formidling av samtids-

kunst rettet mot ungdomsskoleelever [“That was in fact quite fun”: A research on dissemination

of contemporary art for pupils in compulsory school] (No. 9). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Solhjell, Dag (2001). Formidler og formidlet: en teori om kunstformidlingens praksis [Disseminator and

disseminated: a theory on the practice of dissemination of art]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Storaas, Frøydis (1996). Barneteikning – form og forteljing [Cildrens drawings – form and

narration]. Oslo: Samlaget.

Thodal, Vigdis Stuberg (2005). Fiberlaminat (No. 11). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avd. for estetiske fag.

APPENDIX 5


Trageton, Arne (1997). Leik med materiale. Konstruksjonsleik 1–7 år [Playing with materials.

Construction games for children from one to seven]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Tronshart, Bjørg (1995). Formingsfagets egenart. En artikkel- og essaysamling. Evaluering av form-

ingsfaget i grunnskolen [Particularites of art education. A collection of articles and essays.

Evaluation of art education in compulsory school]. Notodden: Høgskolen i Telemark og

Telemarksforsking.

Underthun, Kari (2003). Rom for kunst og håndverk: en studie av de estetiske og funksjonelle

aspekter ved rom for kunst og håndverk på nybygde skoler [Room for art and crafts: a study

on the aesthetic and functional aspects of a space for art and crafts in recently completed

schools] (No. 18). Høgskolen i Oslo, Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Ytterstad, Bente (2002). “Rett i garnet” [“Into the net”] (No. 16). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Ytterstad, Bente (2002). “Løse tråder”: en artikkelsamling i etterkant av hovedfagsoppgaven “Rett

i garnet” [“Loose threads”: a collection of articles subsequent to the master thesis “Straight

into the net”] (No. 17). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Øverjordet, Beathe (2006). Blikk på hus: En undersøkelse av fenomenet hus, og en analyse av

samtidskunst ut i fra retorikk, stedsfi losofi ske og sosialantropologiske perspektiver [View on

houses: a research on the phenomenon house, and an analysis of contemporary art seen

through rhetoric, philosophy of places and social anthropological perspectives] (No. 13).

Høgskolen i Oslo, Avdeling for estetiske fag.

Øyan, Anne Stol (2003). Samtidskunst og estetisk opplæring [Contemporary art and aesthetic

education] (No. 19). Høgskolen i Oslo.

ChaptersAmari, Morteza (2005). E–læring i kunst og håndverk. Internett som læringsarena [E–learning

in art and crafts education. Internet as a learning platform]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes

(Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 63-69). Høgskolen i

Oslo.

Austestad, Anna (2006). Mellom store og små fortellinger [Between meta and little narratives].

In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Kunnskapsløftet og visuell kompetanse

(No. 24, pp. 59-68). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (1995). Formingsfaget i et oppdragelses- og dannelsesperspektiv [Art

education in an upbringing and educational perspective]. In L. Lindfors & J. Peltonen (Eds.),

Slöjdkompetens i nordisk kultur (Vol. B:1). Vasa: NorFo.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (1995). Formingsfaget i et oppdragelses- og danningsperspektiv [Art edu-

cation in an upbringing and educational perspective]. In B. Tronshart (Ed.), Formingsfagets

egenart. En artikkel- og essaysamling. Evaluering av formingsfaget i grunnskolen. Bø: Høgskolen

i Telemark og Telemarksforskning.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (1995). Jeg fant, jeg fant – om konstruksjon av kompetanse i kunstfeltet

[Look what I found – about acquiring competence in the domain of arts]. In L. Lindfors &

J. Peltonen (Eds.), Slöjdkompetens i nordisk kultur (Vol. B:1). Vasa: NorFo.

APPENDIX 5


Borgen, Jorunn Spord (2002). Kunstformidling for barn og unge – erfaringer og utviklingstrekk

[Dissemination of art to children and youth – experiences and development]. In S. Bjørkås

(Ed.), Kulturproduksjon, distribusjon og konsum (Vol. 26). Kristiansand: Høgskoleforlaget og

Senter for kulturstudier.

Bro, Sissel (2002). Romlig formskaping sett i relasjon til kropp og læring [Spatial representa-

tions viewed in relation to body and learning]. In J. Sandven (Ed.), Sløyden – idealet om et bra

liv? (Vol. B:11, pp. 123-139). Vasa: NordFo.

Brænne, Karen (2004). Kunst– og designdidaktikk i lærerutdanning. Praksisfellesskap og

kunnskaps utvikling [Art and design education in teacher training. Community in practice

and development of knowledge]. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog – designforskning i et

demokratisk perspektiv (No. 22, pp. 77-85). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Brænne, Karen (2005). Moderne opphav og konsekvensar – fagdidaktisk praksis i eit kunst- og

designdidaktisk perspektiv [Modern origin and consequences – perspectives on art and

design educational practices]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og

fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 17-25). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Brænne, Karen (2006). Kunst og handverk i Kunnskapsløftet 06 [Art and crafts in the Know-

ledge Promotion 06]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Kunnskapsløftet og

visuell kompetanse (No. 24, pp. 13-20). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Carlsen, Kari (1998). Evaluation of art in primary and secondary school. In L. Lindström (Ed.),

Nordic Visual Arts Research. A Theoretical and Methodological Review (pp. 179-185). Stockholm

Insititute of Education Press (HLS Forlag).

Cruikshank, Øystein (2002). Makt, defi nisjonsmakt og smak: En undersøkelse av formidlin-

gen av Skulpturlandskap Nordland [Power, power of defi nition and taste: A research on

dissemination of knowledge of “Skulpturlandskap Nordland”]. In J. Capjon & S. Kvarv

(Eds.), Route mapping. On relevant methods, one’s own choice and application (Vol. 5, pp. 72-89).

Oslo School of Architecture.

Cruikshank, Øystein (2004). Kulturell kapital. Begrep eller metafor? [Cultural capital. Concept

or metaphor?]. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog – designforskning i et demokratisk perspektiv


Cruikshank, Øystein (2006). Defi nisjonsmakt og smak i kunstfeltet [Power of defi nition and

taste in arts]. In L. M. Nielsen, K. D. Opstad & R. Norum (Eds.), Kunst, engasjement og frosne

tær. Til minne om Øystein Cruikshank (pp. 18-71). Tromsø: Eureka forlag.

Dagsland, Torunn Paulsen (2004). Praksisbasert forskning i kunst og håndverk [Research based

on practice in art and crafts]. In K. Borg & C. Nygren-Landgärds (Eds.), Slöjdforskning: Artiklar

från forskarutbildnings kursen Slöjd och bild i en vetenskapsfi losofi sk och metodologisk kontext

(Vol. 9). Vasa: Åbo Akademi, Pedagogiska fakulteten.

Dagsland, Torunn Paulsen (2006). Å lytte til barns erfaring i möte med kunst, arkitektur og

design [To pay attenton to childrens experiences meeting art, architecture and design]. In

K. Borg & C. Nygren-Landgärds (Eds.), Lärande processer genom skapande arbete i en veten-

skaplig belysning. Artiklar från forskarutbildningskurs (Vol. 21). Vasa: Åbo Akademi, Peda-

gogiska fakulteten.

APPENDIX 5


Digranes, Ingvild (2004). Thoughts on transdiciplinarity. In H. Dunin-Woyseth & L. M. Nielsen

(Eds.), Discussing transdisciplinarity: Making professions and the new mode of knowledge produc-

tion. The Nordic Reader 2004 (No. 6, pp. 111-116). Oslo School of Architecture and Design.

Digranes, Ingvild (2005). Den kulturelle skulesekken. Teachers of Art and Crafts and their

negotiation of professional identities. In DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer


Digranes, Ingvild (2006). Det doble kjeldespring [The double knowledgespring]. In L. M. Nielsen

& I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Kunnskapsløftet og visuell kompetanse (No. 24, pp. 1-12).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina (2005). The “thinkable” and the “unthinkable” doctorates. In J. Michl

& L. M. Nielsen (Eds.), Building a doctoral programme in architecture and design (pp. 149-173).


Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Michl, Jan (2001). Towards a disciplinary identity of the making

professions. An introduction. In H. Dunin-Woyseth & J. Michl (Eds.), Towards a disciplinary

identity of the making professions: The Oslo Millennium Reader (Vol. 4, pp. 1-20). Oslo School

of Architecture.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (2003). From apprentice to master. Some notes on

educating design scholars and developing design scholarship. In D. Durling & K. Sugiyama (Eds.),

Proceedings of the third conference Doctoral Education in Design. 3rdDED Tsukuba (pp. 25-34).

University of Tsukuba, Jap.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (2004). From apprentice to master: some notes

on educating design scholars and developing design scholarship. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.),

Design Dialog – designforskning i et demokratisk perspektiv (Vol. 22, pp. 15-26). Høgskolen i

Oslo.

Fauske, Laila Belinda (2005). Arkitektur innenfor rammene av Kunst og håndverk. En fagdidaktisk

utfordring? [Architecture within the subject Art and crafts. An educational challenge?].

In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer


Fauske, Laila Belinda (2006). Estetisk kvalitet i våre omgivelser – moderne arkitektur som et

fagdidaktisk anliggende [Aesthetic qualities in our environement – modern architecture in

art and design education]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Kunnskaps-

løftet og visuell kompetanse (No. 24, pp. 21-32). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2005). Det va øran æ hi glømt av! Om tegneprosesser i barnehagen [It

was the ears I forgot! About drawing processes in preschools]. In T. Moen, V. Nilssen &

M. B. Postholm (Eds.), Kvalitative forskere i teori og praksis (Vol. 15, pp. 85-97). Trondheim:

Tapir Akademisk Forlag.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2005). Kasus – hva og hvorfor? Tolkninger av kasusstudien med et sideblikk

til noen kunstfaglige eksempler [Cases – what and why? Interpretations of the case study

whith a sidelong glance to some examples from arts]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.),

DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 80-89). Høgskolen i Oslo.

APPENDIX 5


Gulliksen, Marte (2001). The creative meeting – a discussion over the aesthetic elements in the

creative process. In C. Nygren-Landgärds & J. Peltonen (Eds.), Visions on Sloyd and Sloyd

Education (Vol. B:10, pp. 55-65). Vasa: NordFo.

Gulliksen, Marte (2003). Finnes det en teoretisk drøftingstradisjon innen mitt fagfelt? [Are

there traditions for theoretical discussions in art and crafts education?]. In J. Sandven (Ed.),

Fagkultur og kernefaglighed (Vol. B:12). Vasa: NordFo.

Gulliksen, Marte (2004). Constructing a Formbild. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog – design-

forskning i et demokratisk perspektiv (No. 22, pp. 53-63). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Gulliksen, Marte (2005). Formbild – opening the “black box”. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes

(Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 26-36). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (1995). Kunnskapsbegrep i forming [Terms of knowledge in forming].

In B. Tronshart (Ed.), Formingsfagets egenart (pp. 62-85). Notodden: Telemarksforskning –

Høgskolen i Telemark.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2001). Den estetiske dimensjonen i grunnskolen – en analyse av læreplaner

og av læreres oppfatninger [The aesthetic dimension in compulsory school – an analysis

of curricula and of teachers interpretations]. In C. Nygren-Landgärds & J. Peltonen (Eds.),

Visions on Sloyd and Sloyd Education (Vol. B:10, pp. 105-125). Vasa: NordFo.

Hestad, Monica (2005). The designer’s role in building strong brands. In L. M. Nielsen &

I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 57-62).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Hestad, Monika (2006). Merkevaremakt og forbrukarmakt [Brandpower and consumerpower].

In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Kunnskapsløftet og visuell kompetanse


Hodneland, Kari Bjørka (2005). Conversation as a tool for development of new knowledge?

Reporting from the fi eld. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og

fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 70-79). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Hohr, Hansjørg (2004). Skole uten sanselighet. Det estetiske i grunnskolens læreplan L97

[A school without sensuousness. The aesthetics in the national curriculum of 1997]. In

G. Imsen (Ed.), Det ustyrlige klasserommet. Om styring, samarbeid og læringsmiljø i grunnskolen

(pp. 97-118). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Håberg, Kirsten Røvig (1995). Kunstformidling i skolen [Dissemination of art in school]. In

Kunstfagene til besvær eller begjær? (pp. 189-196). Vollen: Tell forlag.

Ingebrethsen, Berit (2006). Visual packages of information. In J. Michl & L. M. Nielsen (Eds.),

Building a doctoral programme in architecture and design (pp. 66-69). Oslo School of Archi-

tecture and Design.

Johannsen, Christiane (2006). A story to tell. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog

– Kunnskapsløftet og visuell kompetanse (No. 24, pp. 33-47). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Kjosavik, Steinar (1995). Forming – fra praktisk opplæring til allmenndanning [Forming – from

practical training to general education]. In L. Lindfors & J. Peltonen (Eds.), Slöjdkompetens i

nordisk kultur (Vol. B:1). Vasa: NorFo.

APPENDIX 5


Kjosavik, Steinar (2004). Kunst og håndverk – et nytt fag, men ble det nytt? [Art and crafts – a

new subject, but did it renew?]. In K. Klette (Ed.), Fag og arbeidsmåter i endring (pp. 157-169).

Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Klæbo, Kirsten (2005). Bilde og begrep. Hvordan kan skriftilge kommentarer øke læring i

forbindelse med kommunikasjon rundt bilder? [Picture and concept. How may written

comments be used to increase learning concerning communication based on pictures?]. In

H. Høivik (Ed.), Fragmenter – Modell og eksempler på brukerstyrt e-læring (No. 22, pp. 97-112).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Koritzinsky, Theo (1995). Formingsfaget i samfunnsperspektiv [The subject forming viewed in

a society perspective]. In B. Tronshart (Ed.), Formingsfagets egenart (pp. 99-112). Notodden:

Telemarksforskning - Høgskolen i Telemark.

Krohg, Morten (2002). Poetikk og informasjon [Poetics and information]. In J. Sandven (Ed.),

Sløyden – idealet om et bra liv? (Vol. B:11, pp. 105-122). Vasa: NordFo.

Lefdal, Else Margrethe (2005). Etisk designperspektiv. Dialog med brukerne og design for alle

[Ethical designerperspective. Dialogue with the users and design for everyone]. In L. M. Nielsen

& I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 47-56).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Lidén, Hilde (2000). Drawings in children’s peer culture. In L. Lindström (Ed.), The Cultural

Context. Comparative Studies of Art Education and Children’s Drawings (Vol. 7, pp. 229-234).

Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Forlag).

Lutnæs, Eva (2006). Vurderingskompetanse i faglærerutdanningen [Assessment litteracy in the

teacher training in art and design]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes (Eds.), DesignDialog –

Kunnskapsløftet og visuell kompetanse (No. 24, pp. 59-68). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Melbye, Ella (2003). Det å forme sett som kunst- og kulturformidlingsprosesser [Forming viewed

as dissemination processes of art and culture]. In J. Sandven (Ed.), Fagkultur og kernefaglighed

(Vol. B:12). Vasa: NordFo.

Michl, Jan (2003). Å se design som redesign: Formivningsdidaktiske betraktninger [On seeing

design as redesign: Refl ections on design education]. In E. Dokk-Holm (Ed.), Utforskning

(pp. 248-267). Oslo School of Architecture and Design.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (1995). Visuelle kunstfag på off ensiven – fra festtaler og utredninger til

handling? [Visual arts in school in favour – from principal speaches and studies into action?].

In Kunstfagene til besvær eller begjær? (pp. 85-93). Vollen: Tell forlag.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (1998). Research Programs for the Refl ective Practitioner. In L. Lindström


Stockholm Institute of Education Press (HLS Forlag).

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2004). Design, innovasjon og demokrati – om framveksten av forskernett-

verket DesignDialog [Design, innovation and democracy – about the development of the

researcher network DesignDialog]. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog – designforskning i et

demokratisk perspektiv (No. 22, pp. 3-13). Høgskolen i Oslo.

APPENDIX 5


Nielsen, Liv Merete (2004). Store FoU-oppgaver i lite miljø [Many research and development

assignments (R & D) within a small environment]. In I. J. Holt (Ed.), Høgskoleliv i Pilestredet

– om Grotid og tids-Cleme(t) (pp. 171-175). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2005). Design, undervisning og forskning – noen nordiske betraktninger

[Design, teaching and research – some Nordic refl ections]. In L. M. Nielsen & I. Digranes

(Eds.), DesignDialog – Design og fagdidaktiske utfordringer (No. 33, pp. 1-7). Høgskolen i Oslo.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2005). Imagining Space on the Base of Pictorial Representations. In

R. E. Griffi n, S. B. Chandler & B. D. Crowden (Eds.), Visual Literacy and Development: An

African Experience (pp. 167-172). Madison, WI: Omnipress.

Nielsen, Liv Merete, Aksnes, Dagfi nn, Reitan, Janne Beate & Digranes, Ingvild (2005). Multi-

disciplinary design curricula from primary to university level. In P. Rodgers, L. Brodhurst &

D. Hepburn (Eds.), Crossing Design Boundaries (pp. 389-394). London: Taylor & Francis.

Nyrnes, Aslaug (2006). Mellom akantus og arabesk: Retorisk perspektiv på skapande (forskings)

arbeid i kunst og handverk [Between acanthus and arabesque: A rhetorical perspective on

creative (research)work in art and crafts]. In K. Borg & C. Nygren-Landgärds (Eds.), Lärande

processer genom skapande arbete i en vetenskaplig belysning. Artiklar från forskarutbildningskurs

(Vol. 21). Vasa: Åbo Akademi, Pedagogiska fakulteten.

Ongstad, Sigmund (2004). Fagdidaktikk som forskningsfelt [Teaching theory as a branch of

research]. In NFR (Ed.), Kunnskapsstatus for forskningsprogrammet KUPP. Kunnskapsutvikling

i profesjonsutdanning og profesjonsutøving (pp. 30-53). Oslo: Norges forskningsråd.

Reitan, Janne (2004). Folkedesign – Vernacular design. Et praksisfellesskap for læring? [Fol-

kedesign – Vernacular design. A community of practice for learning?]. In L. M. Nielsen

(Ed.), DesignDialog – designforskning i et demokratisk perspektiv (No. 22, pp. 39-51). Høgskolen

i Oslo.

Reitan, Janne Beate (2005). Inuit vernacular design as a community of practise for learning. In

P. Rodgers, L. Brodhurst & D. Hepburn (Eds.), Crossing Design Boundaries (pp. 89-93). London:

Taylor & Francis Group.

Retvik, Jorun (2005). Case-studier i kunst og håndtverk [Case studies in art and crafts]. In H.

Høivik (Ed.), Fragmenter – Modell og eksempler på brukerstyrt e-læring (No. 22, pp. 41-70).

Høgskolen i Oslo.

Samuelsen, Arne Marius (1998). Traditions and methods in visual arts research. In L. Lindström

(Ed.), Nordic visual arts research. A theoretical and methodological review (pp. 175-178). Stockholm

Insititute of Education Press (HLS Forlag).

Sandven, Jostein (2002). Kroppslig erfaringsdanning i arbeid med rom [Bodybased knowledge

through spatial activity]. In J. Sandven (Ed.), Sløyden – idealet om et bra liv? (Vol. B:11,

pp. 151-163). Vasa: NordFo.

Sandven, Jostein (2004). Opplevelse av det kulturelle rommet som utgangspunkt for forsk-

ning som bygger på forståelse [Experience of the cultural space as a point of departure for

research based on understanding]. In K. Borg & C. Nygren-Landgärds (Eds.), Slöjdforskning:

Artiklar från forskarutbildningskursen Slöjd och bild i en vetenskapsfi losofi sk och metodologisk

kontext (Vol. 9). Vasa: Åbo Akademi, Pedagogiska fakulteten.

APPENDIX 5


Stafseng, Ola (2006). Estetikk – pedagogikk – ungdom: En trist historie – Et historisk tilbake-

blikk på formings– eller kunstpedagogikk [Aesthetics – education – young people: A sad

story – An historical retrospect on art education]. In U. P Lundgren (Ed.), Uttryck, intryck,

avtryck – lärande, estetiska uttrycksformer och forskning (pp. 19-32). Stockholm: Uppsala uni-

versitet och Vetenskapsrådet.

Strøm, Eva (2005). Bruk av det digitale mediet i en designprosess [Use of the digital media in a

design process]. In H. Høivik (Ed.), Fragmenter – Modell og eksempler på brukerstyrt e-læring


Strømnes, Åsmund (2002). Hovedfag i forming: Unnfanging, fødselshjelp, vekst og voner [Master

in forming: Conception, obstetric aid, growth and hopes]. In E. Melbye (Ed.), Hovedfagsstu-

dium i forming 25 år (Vol. 2). Notodden: Høgskolen i Telemark.

Tronshart, Bjørg (2004). Utstillingen – noen momenter til et retorisk perspektiv [The exhibition

– some elements for a rhetorical perspective]. In K. Borg & C. Nygren-Landgärds (Eds.),

Slöjdforskning: Artiklar från forskarutbildningskursen Slöjd och bild i en vetenskapsfi losofi sk och

metodologisk kontext (Vol. 9). Vasa: Åbo Akademi, Pedagogiska fakulteten.

Tronshart, Bjørg (2006). Utstillingsrommet som didaktisk rom [The exhibition hall as an edu-

cational room]. In K. Borg & C. Nygren-Landgärds (Eds.), Lärande processer genom skapande

arbete i en vetenskaplig belysning. Artiklar från forskarutbildningskurs (Vol. 21). Vasa: Åbo Aka-

demi, Pedagogiska fakulteten.

Ytterstad, Bente (2002). Exploring the potential of “the picture” in art related research and science.

In J. Capjon & S. Kvarv (Eds.), Route Mapping. On Relevant Methods, one’s Own Choice and

Application (Vol. 5, pp. 161-172). Oslo School of Architecture.

Øyan, Anne Stol (2004). DESIGN – mellom kunst og teknologi [DESIGN – between art and

technology]. In L. M. Nielsen (Ed.), DesignDialog – designforskning i et demokratisk perspektiv


ArticlesAndersen, Mildrid, Sande, Odd, Vavik, Ragnhild & Gullberg, Vivian Hernar (1995). Fjernes

“forming” fra den nye fagplanen? [Is “forming” removed from the new curriculum?]. Form,

29(2), 28.

Aure, Venke (1996). Kunstformidling for barn og unge – utenfra, ovenfra, innenfra? [Dissemi-

nation of art for children and youth – from the outside, from above, from the inside?]. Barn,

14(1), 55-76.

Aure, Venke (2006). Formidling av bilder til barn – som kunstdidaktisk diskurs [Dissemination

of pictures to children – as art educational discourse]. Tidsskrift for børne og ungdomskultur,

51, 133-153.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (1995). Båtryen og lofotvesten – wittgensteinianisme og modernitet: et

forsøk på å beskrive det ubeskrivelige [The boatrug and the Lofoten waistcoat – wittgen-

steinisme and modernity: an attempt to describe the indescribable]. Norsk pedagogisk tids-

skrift, 79(2/3), 59-70.

APPENDIX 5


Borgen, Jorunn Spord (2002). Kunstnerisk forsknings- og utviklingsarbeid? [Artistic research

and developement work?] Forskningspolitikk (4).

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (2003). Den kulturelle skolesekken: utfordringer og kompetansebehov

[The cultural rucksack: challenges and needs of qualifi cation]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift,

87(1/2), 36-41.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (2006). Barn og kunstformidling – tradisjoner, begrunnelser og perspek-

tiver [Children and dissemination of arts – traditions, facts and perspectives]. Tidsskrift for

børne og ungdomskultur, 51, 109-131.

Bugnum, Berit (2004). Teknologi og Design i norsk skole: Faget som “ikke ble” [Technology

and Design in Norwegian school: The subject which “did not happen”]. Norsk pedagogisk

tidsskrift, 88(5), 382-394.

Carlsen, Kari (1996). Ny læreplan, en forandring fra hva?: to rapporter om “Evaluering av

formingsfaget i grunnskolen” [New curriculum, a change?: two reports on “Evaluation of

art and crafts in primary and secondary school”]. Form, 30(2), 10-12.

Carlsen, Kari (1996). Øye for barn: dokumentasjon i barnehagene i Reggio Emilia [Aware of

children: documentation about the kindergartens in Reggio Emilia]. Norsk førskolelærerblad

(15), 12-15.

Carlsen, Kari (2004). Basiskompetanse i en foranderlig verden [Basic qualifi cations in a changing

world]. Form, 38(3), 18-19.

Cruikshank, Øystein (2001). Didaktiske forslag [Educational suggestions]. Form, 35(4), 50-51.

Cruikshank, Øystein (2002). Kunst og design i skolen? [Arts and design in school]. Form, 36(1), 27.

Cruikshank, Øystein (2004). Nye læplaner for grunnskolen og den videregåendende skolen

[New curricula for primary and upper secondary school]. Form, 38(4), 2.

Dagsland, Torunn Paulsen (1996). Å dokumentere barnas formingsprosesser [Documenting

creative processes]. Form, 30(3), 26-27.

Danbolt, Gunnar (1995). Kulturformidling til barn: betraktninger omkring innhold og begrep

[Dissemination of culture to children: refl ections on content and notion]. Barn, 13(3), 18-32.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina (2003). Et møte med fem forskere fra de skapende og utøvende fag

[A meeting with fi ve scholars from the creative and practising disciplines]. Nordic Journal of

Architectural Research, 16(1), 41-45.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina (2004). Arkitekturforskning: “Dialogisk” og/eller “faglig introvert”?

[Research in architecture: “Dialogical” and/or “subject introvert”]. Byggekunst, 86(1), 68.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (2003). 3rd conference doctoral education in

design. Design Research News, 8(12), 3-8.

Dunin-Woyseth, Halina & Nielsen, Liv Merete (2004). “Designkunnskapsreisen”: Columbus,

Ohio, – La Clusaz, Frankrike, – Tsukuba, Japan, og videre- [“A journey in design research”:

Columbus, Ohio, – La Clusaz, France, – Tsukuba, Japan etc.]. Nordic Journal of Architectural

Research, 17(1), 76-79.

Dybwad, Liv Anne (1996). Norsk barnebildesamling [The Norwegian collection of children’s

drawings]. Form, 30(6], 26-28.

Enerstvedt, Åse (1995). Om kulturformidling for barn i Bergen [About dissemination of culture

for children in Bergen]. Barn, 13(3), 172-178.

APPENDIX 5


Framgard, Erling (1996). Utkastet til ny læreplan for Kunst og håndverk – forfeilet og foreldet?

[The proposal to a new curriculum of Art and crafts – unsuccessful and out-dated?]. Form,

30(2), 26-29.

Fredbo, Helge (1995). Forming i grunnskolen L97 [Art and crafts in primary and lower secondary

school – curriculum of 97]. Form, 29(5), 37-39.

Frisch, Nina Scott (1995). Å tegne det du ser: en undersøkelse om sakstegning i grunnskolen

[To draw what you see: a research on still life drawing in compulsory school]. Form, 29(1),

28-29.

Frisch, Nina Scott (1996). Progresjon i tegneundervisningen? – Sakstegning i grunnskolen

[Progression in drawing education? – Still life drawing in compulsory school]. Form, 30(2),

16-19.

Frisch, Nina Scott (1996). Sakstegning i grunnskolen: Andre del: Progresjon i tegneunder-

visningen? [Stilllife drawing in compulsory school: Part 2: Progression in drawing dissemi-

nation]. Form, 30(2), 16-19.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2001). Dokumentasjon og kvalitetsutvikling i barnehagen [Documentation

and development of quality in preschool]. Norsk førskolelærerblad(16), 12-14.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2003). Å løsne på knuten “Tegnekrisa” [To loosen the “Drawing-crisis”].

Form, 37(1), 20-23.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2005). “Se tennene!”: barnetegning – en skatt og et slags spor [“Look at the

teeth!”: children’s drawings – a treasure and some kind of a sign]. Nordisk pedagogik, 25(2),

108-122.

Frisch, Nina Scott (2006). Drawing in preschools: A didactic experience. The International Journal

of Art & Design in Education, 25(1), 74-85.

Fyrileiv, Errol (2004). Kunst & håndverk og matematikk: noen vinklinger på målestokk [Arts

and Craft and mathematics: some points of view on scales]. Form, 38(2), 12-15.

Glambek, Ingeborg (2004). Arkitektur og ideologi [Architecture and ideology]. Nytt norsk tids-

skrift, 12(3), 221 -232.

Gulliksen, Marte (2000). Om estetikken i møtet med materialet i den skapende prosessen

[About the aesthetics in the meeting with the aesthetic elements in the creative process].

Arabesk(2), 3-8.

Gunnes, Margrete (1997). En kunstskole på Helgeland [An art-school at Helgeland]. Form, 31(1),

12-14.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (1998). Kulturarv og kreativitet i den nye læreplan for grunnskolen: belyst

gjennom fagplanene i kunst og håndverk, musikk og norsk [Cultural heritage and creativity

in the new curriculum for compulsory school: illustrated trough the curricula of art and

crafts, music, and norwegian]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 82(3), 138-149.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (1999). Kulturforståelse hos lærere [Teachers’ understanding of culture].

Norsk pedagogisk tidskrift, 82(4-5), 248-259.

Halvorsen, Else Marie (2000). Den estetiske dimensjonen i grunnskolens læreplaner de siste

tretti åra [The aesthetic dimension in curricula for compulsory school for the last thirty

years]. Arabesk(1), 3-13.

APPENDIX 5


Hohr, Hansjörg (1996). Opplevelse som erkjennelsesform [Experience as cognition]. Norsk

pedagogisk tidsskrift, 80(5), 280-288.

Håberg, Kirsten Røvig (1998). Om tekstilfagenes stilling etter reform ‘94 [About the textile

disciplines position after the ‘94 curriculum]. Form, 32(1), 12-13.

Klæbo, Kirsten & Svaboe, Bodil (2006). Design and Digital Textile in higher Education: The

Impact of Digital Technology on Printed Textile and Surface Design. Tidsskrift för lärarut-

bildning och forskning, 13(2-3), 136-151.

Lervik, Mia & Solstad, Anne Grete (1996). Egget er lagt – må høna tilpasse seg? [The egg is laid

– do the hen need to adjust?]. Form, 30(1), 22-24.

Lervik, Mia & Solstad, Anne Grete (1996). Hvem tar ansvar for hva? [Who are responsible for

what?]. Form, 30(1), 24.

Lied, Edith (1995). Forming. Form, 29(2), 30.

Marthinsen, Turid (2006). Fra moro med saks og lim til Barns bilder i barns verden: viktige

saker fra tiden 70-80 tallet [From fun with scissors and glue to childrens images in their own

world: important issues from the 70s and 80s]. Form, 40(4), 10.

Michl, Jan (2001). Å se design som redesign. Formgivingsdidaktiske betraktninger [On seeing

design as redesign. Refl ections on design education]. Form, 35(5), 16-18.

Michl, Jan (2002). On seeing design as redesign: An exploration of a neglected problem in

design education. Scandinavian Journal of Design History(12), 7-23.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (1995). Undervisningsplaner i forandring [Curriculum development].

Norsk Forms Bulletin(1), 6-7.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2003). Design education of the lay client. Information Design Journal,

11(2-3), 184-188.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2004). Arkitektur og design i skolen – utfordringer for framtiden [Archi-

tecture and design in school – challenges for the future]. Form, 38(4), 3-4.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2006). Med Kunst og design inn i framtiden [With Art and design into the

future]. Form, 40(4), 3-4.

Nielsen, Liv Merete (2006). Norge i Norden – design mellom kunst og sløyd [Norway in the

Nordic region – design between art and sloyd]. Form, 40(1), 3.

Nilsen, Eli Raa (1995). Kven skal eige formingsfaget? [Who owns the art and crafts education?].

Form, 29(5), 34-35.

Refsum, Grete & Ringset, Gry (1997). Kunstfaglig forskning. Forskning i visuell kunst: et forsøk

på defi nisjon [Research in arts. Research in visual arts: an attempt on making a defi nition].

Kunst og kultur, 80(4), 252-255.

Reitan, Janne (1995). Fra forming til kunst og håndverk [From forming to art and crafts]. Form,

29(2), 29.

Reitan, Janne (2006). Inuit vernacular design as a community of practice for learning. CoDesign,

2(2), 71-80.

Retvik, Trygve (2000). Miljøvennlig grafi kk [Eco-friendly graphics]. Form, 34(3), 14-15.

APPENDIX 5


Ruud-Johansen, Petter (2006). Kampen om kunsten begynner allerede i grunnskolen [The

battle of art starts in primary school]. Form, 40(2), 12-13.

Samuelsen, Arne Marius (1996). Kunstformidling via vanlige læremidler [Dissemination of art

through common teaching materials]. Schola, 4(2), 56-59.

Samuelsen, Arne Marius (2002). Er kunsten vanskelig: eller gjør vi den vanskelig? [Are arts

complicated: or do we complicate it]. Arabesk, 42-46.

Sandberg, Lise (2006). Nytt fag for en ny tid [A new subject for new times]. Form, 40(4), 11-12.

Sandberg, Ole Rømer (1995). Arkitektur og omgivelser: Nytt innhold i kjent pedagogisk form

[Architecture and environment: New content in a well-known educational form]. Form,

29(6-7).

Sande, Odd (1995). Forming på veg ut? [Forming on its way out?]. Form, 29(3), 28-29.

Sandstad, Greta Fornes (2004). Allmenne fag skjerpes – yrkesfag svekkes. St.meld. 30 [Inten-

sifi cation of general studies – vocational courses deteriorate. Report 30 to the Norwegian

Parliament]. Form, 38(3), 8-10.

Storaas, Frøydis (1997). Har barneteikninga eit rom? [Do childrens drawings have spatial repre-

sentation]. Form, 31(1), 26-27.

Sundvor, Ingvar & Melbye, Ella (1995). Behold fagbetegnelsen forming! [Maintain the term

forming!]. Form, 29(1), 10-13.

Trageton, Arne (1995). Skulptur- og bruksforming i den nye fi reårige småskulen [Sculpture and

art and crafts in the new system of primary school]. Form, 29(5/6), 26-28.

Trageton, Arne (1995). Verkstadpedagogikk – det skapande utgangspunkt for tverrfagleg

undervisning i den nye 4-årige småskulen [Studio education – the creative point of departure

for multidisciplinary teaching in the new system of primary school]. Form, 29(1), 24-27.

Ulvestad, Hilde Aga (2001). Estetisk dannelse gjennom skapende visuelt arbeid [Aesthetic

education through creative visual activity]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 85(6), 551-562.

Underthun, Kari (2003). Rom for Kunst og håndverk på nybygde skoler [Room for Art and

crafts in new schools]. Form, 37(3), 18-21.

Underthun, Kari & Tronshart, Bjørg (2006). Skolebygninger i Bergen – skolebyggets estetikk og

funksjon. Rom for kunst og håndverk [Schools in Bergen – the aesthetics and functions of

school buildings. Room for Art and crafts]. Form, 40(2), 24-25.

Vasset, Thorstein (1995). Fra forming til kunst og håndverk [From forming to art and crafts].

Form, 29(4), 14-17.

Vestøl, Tone (1996). Ikke enten, eller – men både, og! [Not either, or – but this and that!]. Form,

30(1), 3.

Ytterstad, Bente (2000). 1001 hatt: form/norm/form/norm/form/norm/re/form [1001 hat: form/

norm/form/norm/ form/norm/re/form]. Form, 34(3), 18-21.

Øfsti, Robert (1998). Æ er stor æ – æ har slutta å tegn no [I’m grown – I’ve quit drawing]. Form,

32(4), 22-25.

APPENDIX 5


Aakre, Bjørn & Kjosavik, Steinar (2001). Evaluering av L97, Kunst og håndverk [Evaluation of

the 97 curruculum, Art and crafts]. Form, 35(5), 20-23.

Aakre, Bjørn Magne (2001). Kunst og håndverk, et skolefag for fremtiden? [Art and crafts, a

school subject for the future?]. Form, 35(5), 20-23.

Aakre, Bjørn Magne (2004). Kunst og håndverk i et didaktisk perspektiv [Art and crafts in an

educational perspective]. Form, 38(1), 12-14.

Aasgaard, Kristin (2005). Art and design education – history, theory and criticism. Form, 39(4), 3-4.

ReportsAdam, Milena (2003). Langsomt ble kunsten vår egen? En evaluering av et samarbeidsprosjekt

mellom Norsk Form, Utsmykningsfondet for off entlige bygg og Norsk Kulturråd om utsmykking og

utforming av skoleanlegg [Slowly the arts became our own? An evaluation of a collaboration

between Norsk Form, The National Foundation for Art in Public Buildings and Arts Coun-

cil Norway on decoration and design of school buildings and environment]. Oslo: Norsk

Kulturråd.

Aslaksen, Ellen K., Borgen, Jorunn Spord & Kjørholt, Anne Trine (2003). Den kulturelle skole-

sekken: forskning, utvikling og evaluering [The Cultural Rucksack: research, development and

evaluation]. Oslo: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning.

Aure, Venke & Boyesen, Marit (1995). Pilotgallerier for barn og unge: evaluering etter ett års drift

[Pilot galleries for children and youth: an evaluation of the fi rst year]. Stavanger: Rogaland

Research.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (2003). Kommunikasjonen er kunsten: evaluering av prosjektet Klangfugl –

kunst for de minste [The communication is the art: an evaluation of the project Glitterbird

– art for the youngest]. Oslo: Norsk kulturråd.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord (2005). Kunstaktiv ungdom på internett: evaluering av nettstedet www.Trafo.

no [Youth and art activity on the Internet: an evaluation of the web site www.Trafo.no]. Oslo:

NIFU STEP.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord & Brandt, Synnøve (2006). Ekstraordinært eller selvfølgelig? – Evaluering

av Den kulturelle skolesekken i grunnskolen [Extraordinary or obvious? – An evaluation of The

cultural rucksack in compulsory school]. Oslo: NIFU STEP.

Borgen, Jorunn Spord & Klæbo, Kirsten (2002). EMILE. Observation and analysis of the uses of

information and communication technology in European primary and secondary schools – An

intercultural approach. Paris: Observatoires Des Technologies pour L’Education en Europe.

Bringager, Frithjof & Lidén, Hilde (1997). Barndom i tid, rom og bilder: rapport fra et dokumentas-

jonsprosjekt [Childhood in time, space and pictures: report from a documentation project].

Trondheim: Norsk senter for barneforskning.

Carlsen, Kari & Streitlien, Åse (1995). Elev- og lærerperspektiv på formingsfaget: resultater fra en

spørreundersøkelse [Pupils and teachers perspective on art and crafts: results of a survey].

Notodden: Telemarksforsking.

APPENDIX 5


Danbolt, Gunnar & Enerstvedt, Åse (1995). Når voksenkultur og barns kultur møtes: en evaluerings-

rapport om de kulturformidlingsprosjekter for barn som Barnas hus, Bergen, har satt i gang [When

adult- and childrens culture meet: an evaluation report on the projects of dissemination of

culture to children created by “The Childrens House” in Bergen]. Oslo: Norsk kulturråd.

Hauge, Jarleiv & Aure, Venke (1996). Pilotgallerier for barn og unge: kunstformidling på tvers?

[Pilotgalleries for children and youth: a crossdisciplinary dissemination of art?] (Vol. 96/277).

Stavanger: Rogaland Research.

Kjosavik, Steinar, Koch, Randi-Helene, Skjeggestad, Edith & Aakre, Bjørn Magne (2003). Kunst

og håndverk i L97: nytt fag – ny praksis? [Art and crafts in the national curriculum of 1997:

new subject – new practice?]. Notodden: Telemarksforsking.

Magnussen, Ragnhild (Ed.). (1996). Forskning og kunstnerisk utviklingsarbeid innen kunstfagene

[Research and artistic development in art]. Oslo: Kunstskolenes felles FOU-utvalg.

Norgesnettrådet (2001). Evaluering av huvudfag ved statlige høgskolar uten paralleller i universi-

tetssystemet. [Evaluation of Masterstudies at state university colleges without parallels to the

university system] (No. 5). Oslo: Norgesnettrådet.

Norgesnettrådet (2001). Evaluering av huvudfag ved statlige høgskolar uten paralleller i univer-

sitetssystemet. Eksterne evalueringsrapporter [Evaluation of Masterstudies at state university

colleges without parallels to the university system. External evaluation reports] (No. 5 -

vedlegg). Oslo: Norgesnettrådet.

APPENDIX 5

14:2008 N

ORD

IC VISUA

L A RTS ED

UCATIO

N IN

T RAN

SITION

VETENSKA

PSRÅD

ETS RAPPO

RTSERIE

ISSN 1651-7350

ISBN 978-91-7307-148-2

The Committee for Educational Sciences has, right from the outset in 2001, initiated a large number

of overviews and surveys. The purpose has been to provide a stimulus for discussion about the area

of educational science and also to provide further data on the basis of which the Committee can take

strategic decisions.

This overview presents Nordic research in the realm of visual arts education. The pedagogy of art can be

studied on the basis of knowledge of art or teaching. It can be described in terms of visual communication

or visual culture. Professor Lars Lindström at Stockholm University, who is the editor of the overview,

commences with several articles explaining the conceptual framework and the historical background.

This is followed by overviews from the five Nordic countries on research topics between 1995 and 2006

or later. By way of conclusion there is a comprehensive bibliography of literature in the realm of visual

arts education.

NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION

VETENSKAPSRÅDETS RAPPORTSERIE 14:2008

A Research ReviewKlarabergsviadukten 82 | SE-103 78 Stockholm | Tel +46-8-546 44 000 | Fax +46-8-546 44 180 | [email protected] | www.vr.se

The Swedish Research Council is a government agency that provides funding for basic

research of the highest scientific quality in all disciplinary domains. Besides research

funding, the agency works with strategy, analysis, and research communication.

The objective is for Sweden to be a leading research nation.

NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION...sarily a sign of weakness. It demonstrates the multiple...

Documents

Transcript of NORDIC VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION IN TRANSITION...sarily a sign of weakness. It demonstrates the multiple...